This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 16:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Article about a non-notable Portugese language forum. Seems borderline speedy from a cursory reading, but the anon users working the page don't seem to like the tag I added, so we'll try VfD instead.. Delete. Ken 00:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
My vote is not to delete this. Chupa-mos.Com is more than a forum. Is a way of life. Chupa-mos is a totally brand all known between Portuguese Internet users and the way this forum is reflected on real life is notorious. (Preceding unsigned comment originally by 194.65.16.130 18:10, August 9, 2005 UTC, then altered by L0rd Rayd3n 18:14, August 9, 2005UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 15:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
'cos it's bollocks -- Doc (?) 00:07, 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 REDIRECT to La Hire. Although I voted here, I do not think I have a conflict of interest since the nomination was withdrawn and the voting unanimous. - Splash 19:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Quick googling on "La Here" "giant" gives a couple of hundred hits about Los Angeles. Hoax? DS 00:18, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term. Bgeer 00:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hetep and Respect Bgeer and Good Spirits
Thanks for you interest in this article and your advise and council. I just came back from rewriting the cultural poisoning article (I hope you can find time to take a look). I have read all your comments and reread what I wrote and I am shocked.
My bad, as the young people say. I made a number of errors contextual and otherwise. If I had to vote again (I know I can't do that) I would "vote keep but rewrite" myself. Give me a minute to get my rewrite pen out and fix some of the errors you have pointed out.
I wrote this early version of the article when I first came to wikipedia. I am up here, on and off, for less then two weeks. Most of my time has been spent learning wiki and the rules. I think I am starting to get the hang of it and would like to thank everyone for your help.
-- Aunk 11:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Aunk 18:23, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term. Bgeer 00:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Bgeer in his Vfd said:"…This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term…"
There are three claims in Bgeer's two-sentence comment.
1. Cultural Poisoning is a neologism
2. The article describes Aunk's original research
3. Aunk has not provided evidence that some one other then he, uses the term
First let me say I appreciate Bgeer's interest in cultural literacy. For those who do not know Hetep (sometimes pronounced Hotep, means peace). Bgeer I think you jumped the gun. I was having a similar discussion on the discussion page with individuals interested in the article. I am new but was getting ready to make adjustments to the stub. But let me respond directly to your concerns.
1. Cultural Poisoning is a neologism
This is a debatable assertion. See info from wiki below. The difference between debatable and deleteable is considerable. "…When a word or phrase is no longer "new," it is no longer a neologism…. Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to no longer be considered a neologism; cultural acceptance probably plays a more important role than time in this regard…" [2]
Cultural acceptance is important. This phrase is accepted in the African American community. I have not run across an African American in cyberspace or on the ground that asserts cultural poisoning does not exist in the African American community. In addition many other ethnic groups use this phrase as a google test verifies. [3]
"Yesterday's neologisms, like yesterday's jargon, are often today's essential vocabulary." – Academic Instincts, 2001[1]
The phrase cultural poisoning is essential vocabulary in the cultural literacy discussion of today. See quote from wikipedian below.
"…used frequently in the cultural literacy cult, I've also seen it in Eastern journalism decrying the poisoning of their culture by Western influences…" user: Jareth.:. see his vote and comment below:.
2. The article describes Aunk's original research
The article has been rewritten as source-based research. See wiki policy below.
"…Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia…"
All information listed under references , in the article comply with following wiki policy.
"… it is essential that any primary-source material used in an article has been published or otherwise made available to people who do not rely on Wikipedia…"
The other reason that "original research" should not apply to this article is as follows.
Aunk is writing as and expert on the terms Cultural Health, Cultural literacy and cultural poisoning as they related to the African American community. See the applicable wiki rule below.
"…No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. They should refer to themselves and their publications in the third person and write from a neutral point of view (NPOV)…"
3. Aunk has not provided evidence that some one other then he, uses the term
See google test [4] cultural poisoning -aunk -wikipedia 500,000 googles
See quote from page 3 not by Aunk
The Virginian Pilot Ledger-Star, May 4, 1986: Note: Straight ASCII ... In so doing, boomer comedians have become the antidote to a severe case of cultural poisoning,people to whom the baby boom generation probably owes what ... www.richmonder.com/charbeneau/editorial/boomhum.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
See quote from google page 3 not by aunk
Jihad Watch: Terror group threatens Dutch with 'Islamic earthquake' We are starting to experience the first stage of cultural poisoning, the noxious effects are just starting to manifest themselves in truly frightening ways ... www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002866.php - Similar pages
See quote from wikipedian below.
"…used frequently in the cultural literacy cult, I've also seen it in Eastern journalism decrying the poisoning of their culture by Western influences…" user: Jareth.:. see his vote and comment below:.
--
Aunk
23:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
VBB Forums-cruft. If we're to delete those - and we should - then this should go too. DS 00:24, 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 KEEP. Although I voted here, I don't think I have a conflict of interest since the nomination was withdrawn and the voting unanimous. - Splash 19:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not needed, wikipedia isnt a list of little tiny towns 2mcm 00:47, 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 merge and redirect to infantilism. – malathion talk 06:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ABDL the creator of that page removed the redirect [5] and pointed to this page. Which was also a redirect until it was removed [6]. Either delete, or redirect and protect. brenneman (t) (c) 01:24, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:42, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Eighteen-year-old wanna-be politician, entering Tuskogee this fall. Good luck on that political career (especially as a Democrat in Oklahoma), but he shouldn't get an article until he wins at least ONE election. Calton | Talk 01:46, 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 keep (no consensus). A very slight majority for deletion, but no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
"Sacred Heart School" gets ~85,000 google hits. It's gonna take an amazing disambiguation page to straighten them all out some day. Not notable. Delete. Or at least rename to something more specific. Or maybe this could be made into a list of all schools named Sacred Heart. -- Mwanner 02:02, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity Page Lcuff 02:03, 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 KEEP. - Splash 19:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Comic book fancruft. Lazyhound 02:12, 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 SPEEDIED by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. -- malathion talk 02:15, 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 KEEP. - Splash 19:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Completing nomination begun by DragonflySixtyseven. If this is a real place, it should be kept (but add enough text so that the pics don't overwhelm the thing). -- BD2412 talk 02:31, 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 COPYVIO. Already listed. - Splash 20:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising,nn-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:33, 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 speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable neologism.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:38, 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 keep because of ongoing copyvio investigation and lack of valid votes in this discussion. The only vote that I see here that I can count is Capitalistroadster's.
If not for the copyvio, I would have extended discussion. If it survives WP:CP, I will probably relist. Somebody remind me should I forget. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 22:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity, definite copyvio, not notable (win the election first) 128.112.24.137 03:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
speedy keep, high-profile race in Westchester. Voters have a right to find out information about the candidates. This makes it easier for them to do so.
speedy keep, I wrote the biography, posted it on the website and hold the exclusive right to use it. There is no copyright violation here. By posting the biography on this page I authorized it's use on 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 keep (no consensus). This one is very difficult, because there are a number of votes from users with very low edit counts. In particular the nomination is by an anonymous user, and the two last keep votes are both from users whos' votes are among their earliest edits. Nonetheless, all these users appear to have been making legitimate edits as well, and all were created before this VFD started. Because of this, and also with the "when in doubt, don't delete"-rule in mind, I will accept all the votes. The main concern here has been verifiability, I will therefore add a {{verify}}-tag on the article. If no verification is provided, the article may well be listed on VFD again in the near future. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
probable hoax; google returns only a few mentions (less than a page) all of which are dubious touristic sites. 128.112.24.137 03:40, 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 keep. If someone would like to merge it, feel free to be bold. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I hate spammers too, but to be kept the article should be encyclopedic, not ranty. 128.112.24.137 03:41, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism. 0 google hits.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:47, 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 the article was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, possibly advertising-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:52, 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 agree with speedy. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
actually, Sarah Weatherly Brannon did not win the Nobel Prize at 29. (Fake article) 128.112.24.137 03:49, 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 the article was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC) reply
By definition, not more notable than the average college professor. 128.112.24.137 03:53, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Happy Turtle was an ad for a computer game that apparently does not exist 128.112.24.137 03:56, 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 MERGE to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. Already done, so just applying redirect. - Splash 20:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Tremendously obscure Star Wars trivia. 128.112.24.137 03:57, 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 SPEEDY A7. Essjay · Talk 10:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Shane McMullen is being picked on by his friends in Oz. 128.112.24.137 03:58, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
The company appears to be real, but unencyclopedic. Probably just advertising. CJCurrie 04:19, 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 KEEP. Already has cleanup tag. I added some stub-sorts. - Splash 20:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
not notable 128.112.24.137 04:18, 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 merge and redirect to Big Brother. – malathion talk 06:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Is there going to be a page for every single contestant in every single "Big Brother" sequel or spin-off? 128.112.24.137 04:18, 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 -- Allen3 talk 14:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Harvard Crimson Headline: Yalies Make Spoof Page 128.112.24.137 04:19, 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 Keep -- Allen3 talk 14:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
vanity, creator of article shares name with subject; no case for notability. 128.112.24.137 04:21, 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 -- Allen3 talk 14:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable photographer vanity. Gets 130 unique Googles and not all are him (and some are ads). He "...captures what is inside the subject, almost making their aura visible." - Splash 05:16, 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 -- Allen3 talk 14:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
NN nonsense, or just something highly notable that I have never heard of? If the former then delete JeremyA (talk) 05:16, 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 -- Allen3 talk 14:11, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
"Liquivore" got me 8 unique google hits. Maybe something from fiction, but if so, a pretty minor thing. Any sci-fi themed thing that only gets 8 hits is miniscule (hell, typing "darth" and then 4 random letters would probably yield more hits). I guess it has something to do with Alien Planet? Maybe a merge somewhere, but I think deletion is probably preferable. - R. fiend 05:18, 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 -- Allen3 talk 14:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I am unclear on whether copyvio extends to album summaries from Amazon. In any case, this article is mere promotional blurb and is not an article. We should start over. - Splash 05:22, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
non-notable, just silly Sean Black 05:32, 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 shower with speedy deletion. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Patent Nonsense User:XD 04:41, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:51, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity article, non-notable group EdwinHJ | Talk 05:59, 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 speedied by Longhair. — Cryptic (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable high school band conductor, vanity Sdedeo 06:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
then why does the school have an entry? it is not famous in anyway Andrew D White 06:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I am not I simply was noting one of the more famious people from my town I included more of her bio so you can see why I attempted to add this and thought it would be a good addition Andrew D White 06:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I could argue that most of the living people here do not fall in all these categories and that wouldnt make me any more right or wrong than the people who included them maby i should mave a call to delete 30% of the bios here because they are not famous in my part of the world. In defense of this articel though, I would say that she qualifies for: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" Andrew D White 07:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I also added another reason for the "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" point (these can all be verfied throught the Newspaper"The Daily Item" which is published in Sunbury, PA Andrew D White 07:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Ok I am in a more civil mood now an I am open to discuessing this. It may have at first looked like a vanity page but that is due to how I write (I save a lot to ensure that hardware failrure at my end will not end up with the loss of hours of work which cannot be recovered. Andrew D White 07:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
How mutch more notibalit do you want? I am not sure how many more of her notiable events I can publish without it being orrigional research like training some of the members of Breaking Benjamin.(not sure if that even made into a newspaper) Andrew D White 16:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I will agree to this Only if you all stop the character assiniation. I dont like it when people make personal attacks on me. Andrew D White 23:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
(I am refering mostly to the last two comments) Andrew D White 23:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know that is qualifies for speedy deletion due to it having a remote plasuablity. "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." Andrew D White 01:12, August 6, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:45, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
vanity, refers to a self-published book of poems Sdedeo 06:36, 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 speedily deleted per WP:NOT a how-to guide for would-be experimenters in things that blow your head off if you're not careful. FCYTravis 08:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
PICRIC ACID IS VERY SCARY and also Wikipedia is not a textbook/cookbook Sdedeo 06:36, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
advertisement Sdedeo 06:37, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
lengthy article about the founder of a rural Canadian insurance firm, which currently has a staff of nine: [19]. Not notable. EvilPhoenix talk 06:55, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy, but I don't see it. Looks like vanity, but I'll submit it to the community; there seeems to be a strong assertion of notability. No vote. Dmcdevit· t 06:45, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy as vanity, but I see a real assertion of notability in the list of honors and publications. No vote. -- Dmcdevit· t 06:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep Real prominence in specific field (Family Law) unlikely to be vanity per se (individual known to be not a web person!) and significant in academic circles stated. Honours and publications are notable.-- Silver149 07:10, 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 No consensus. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Minor automotive photographer, with gushy bio. Delete. Calton | Talk 06:58, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Minor-league digital-video filmmaker & wannabe professional photographer. Calton | Talk 06:59, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:32, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion because I judge this to be advertising, and as such it's a violation of Section 1.4.3 of WP:NOT The Literate Engineer 07:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Author's Response
I personally do not see how this is advertising, as, unless someone hits the page using "Random article" (and what are the chances of that?), they aren't going to stumble upon the page without actually looking for more information about the game itself.
Screenshots and the website for the game are due out in just a couple of weeks, and it is only a couple of months before the game makes its debut.
You say that Wikipedia is not a "Crystal Ball," and yet there are tons of pages about upcoming movie, music, and game releases. The only reason you are against my example of it is because I come from a very small, independent game company, which doesn't give me the same kind of voice.
I've had the same problem getting information about the game published on game websites--no one believes me. Yet this game has been in development for over a year, and is very far from an amateur attempt at an MMORPG. We have a rather large and fully capable team of coders, designers, modelers, and writers who have given enormous quantities of their time over the past year making this project a reality.
Delete it if you must, it'll just be recreated again when the game comes out this winter. Instead of trying to destroy every attempt at deleting every page that might be some kind of indirect advertisement, just have some trust, for once, and let the information about the game be out there for your audience to see.
That's all I'll say, and if you, the editors, still are not convinced, you are more than welcome to delete the page.
End of (unsigned) author's response
Second Author Response I have saved a copy of the article in .odt form on my computer, so feel free to delete it now. However, I still think that all of you are being absolutely ridiculous, not to mention completely hypocritical. The only reason I'm being treated this way is because I represent such a small game studio! Frag 11:46, 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 speedily deleted as unintelligible nonsense, potential hoax. WPCR is a real radio station, but it's in New Hampshire, not Nashville. FCYTravis 19:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Radio station that does not assert any kind of regional notability. It's also practically illegible. EvilPhoenix talk 07:09, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
This is advertising for a feature of a chain of electronics stores in Sweden, Kjell & Company, which also has an article. I have asked for input about Kjell & Company at the Swedish Wikipedians' notice board and will put off nominating that one for a while. Uppland 07:20, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
The article is for something that is not of enough importance to have its own article, it should be deleted or merged with the main spongebob article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSeer ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 5 August 2005
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 20:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Marked as vanity speedy, but it's a band. No vote. Dmcdevit· t 07:22, 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 speedy delete. – malathion talk 06:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for CSD as band vanity, but there's no such criterion. No vote. Dmcdevit· t 07:52, 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 Keep. --08:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Tagged for CSD as band vanity, but there's no such criterion. No vote. Dmcdevit· t 07:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
No change of vote. Capitalistroadster 06:16, 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 speedily deleted as nonsense hoax or no claim to notability, whichever you prefer. Good catch, Szyslak. FCYTravis 08:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No Google hits for "eddie "centrino" forgacs" or eddie centrino forgacs. I don't know about the rest of you, but I smell a hoax. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:58, 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 No consensus. -- Ryan Delaney talk 11:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, and sounds awfully like advertising. Forum isn't even big. x42bn6 08:25, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
An evangelical Christian youth event in Britain; there are thousands of these around the world. Doesn't seem notable. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
3000 is big for the uk... (Note: Unsigned comment by 82.32.80.168 ( talk · contribs); user's first edit.)
Eh, I don't think it's a valid arguement, but Bonus Stage only recieves 2000-3000 hits a week. Note: Timestamp? Sorry, I'm no good at Wiki'ing -- 82.33.194.36 09:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 13:08, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Same reason as for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Modern West etc yesterday. Additionally, the entire idea of comparing these units in a table by mm equivalent is at fault. Some of these units were very precise, some were quite variable and uncertain over times. Finally, these units are already covered by Ancient weights and measures and sub-articles, to the degree these articles have survived the contributions of this same anon. Sorry for the rant, but I get tired of being his janitor. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
* Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative, excellent links. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)
[ Ancient_Weights_and_Measures]
Indo European Mycenean Minoan Greek | unit | AfroAsiatic Egyptian | unit | |||||||||
fngr | unit | mm | ft | fngrs | unit | mm | ft | cbts | ryl cbts | hayt | minutes | |
1 | daktylos | 19.3 | 1/16 | 1 | uu | 18.8 | 1/16 | 1 24 | 1/28 | 1/280 | 1/8400 | |
1.4 | u | 19.3 | 1/16 | 1.35 | u | 25.3 | 25/296 | 25/444 | 5/1036 | 1/6216 | ||
1.3 | nail | 19.3 | 1/16 | 1.33 | inch | 25 | 1/12 | 1/18 | 1/21 | 1/210 | 1/6300 | |
2 | condylos | 38.6 | 1/8 | 2 | mnw | 37.5 | 1/8 | 1/12 | 1/14 | 1/140 | 1/4200 | |
3 | ? | 57.8 | 3/16 | 3 | špsi | 56.3 | 1/5 | 1/8 | 3/28 | 3/280 | 1/2800 | |
4 | palaiste | 77.1 | 1/4 | 4 | wršpsiwaw | 75.0 | 1/4 | 1/6 | 1/7 | 1/70 | 1/2100 | |
5 | ? | 96.4 | 5/16 | 5 | pt t | 93.8 | 1/3 | 5/24 | 5/28 | 1/56 | 1/1680 | |
6 | ? | 115.7 | 3/8 | 6 | sb3 | 112.5 | 3/8 | 1/4 | 3/14 | 3/140 | 1/1400 | |
7 | ? | 134.9 | 7/16 | 7 | spdw | 131.3 | 4/9 | 7/24 | 1/4 | 1/40 | 1/1200 | |
8 | dichas | 154.2 | 1/2 | 8 | mh | 150.0 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 2/7 | 1/35 | 1/1050 | |
9 | ? | 173.5 | 9/16 | 9 | dsfirrm | 168.8 | 4/7 | 3/8 | 9/28 | 9/280 | 3/2800 | |
10 | ? | 192.8 | 5/8 | 10 | tm3<tsf | 187.5 | 5/8 | 5/12 | 5/14 | 1/28 | 1/840 | |
11 | ? | 212 | 11/16 | 11 | r< | 206 | 2/3 | 11/24 | 11/28 | 11/280 | 11/8400 | |
12 | spithame | 231.3 | 3/4 | 12 | swtu | 225.0 | 3/4 | 1/2 | 3/7 | 3/70 | 1/700 | |
13 | ? | 250.6 | 13/16 | 13 | pa | 243.8 | 4/5 | 13/24 | 13/28 | 13/280 | 13/8400 | |
14 | ? | 269.9 | 7/8 | 14 | thoth | 262.5 | 7/8 | 7/12 | 1/2 | 1/20 | 1/600 | |
15 | ? | 289.1 | 15/16 | 15 | šsp | 281.3 | 1 | 5/8 | 15/28 | 3/56 | 1/560 | |
16 | pous | 308.4 | 1 | 16 | mhtf | 300.0 | 1 | 2/3 | 4/7 | 2/35 | 1/525 | |
17 | ? | 327.7 | 1 | 17 | sa | 318.8 | 1 | 17/24 | 17/28 | 17/280 | 17/8400 | |
18 | ? | 347.0 | 1 | 18 | imi | 337.5 | 1 | 3/4 | 9/14 | 9/140 | 3/1400 | |
19 | ? | 366.2 | 1 | 19 | m | 356.3 | 1 | 1/5 | 19/24 | 19/28 | 19/280 | 19/8400 |
20 | pygon | 385.5 | 5/4 | 20 | Nbthyt | 375.0 | 11/4 | 5/6 | 5/7 | 1/14 | 1/420 | |
21 | ? | 404.8 | 21/16 | 21 | sth | 393.8 | 1 1/3 | 7/8 | 3/4 | 3/40 | 1/400 | |
22 | ? | 424.1 | 11/8 | 22 | sts | 412.5 | 13/8 | 11/12 | 11/14 | 11/140 | 11/4200 | |
23 | ? | 443.3 | 23/16 | 23 | stir | 431.3 | 14/9 | 23/24 | 23/28 | 23/280 | 23/8400 | |
24 | pechya | 462.6 | 3/2 | 24 | ptah | 450.0 | 1 1/2 | 1 | 6/7 | 3/35 | 1/350 | |
25 | ? | 481.9 | 25/16 | 25 | gb | 468.8 | 1 4/7 | 1 | 25/28 | 5/56 | 1/336 | |
25.6 | mcts | 493.4 | 8/5 | 25.6 | ma | 480 | 13/5 | 16/15 | 32/35 | 16/175 | 8/2625 | |
26 | ? | 501.2 | 1 3/8 | 26 | k33 | 487.5 | 15/8 | 13/12 | 13/14 | 13/140 | 13/4200 | |
27 | ? | 520.4 | 27/16 | 27 | m3<t | 506.3 | 1 2/3 | 9/8 | 27/28 | 27/280 | 9/2800 | |
28 | royal cubit | 539.7 | 7/4 | 28 | re | 525.0 | 1 3/4 | 7/6 | 1.00 | 1/10 | 1/300 | |
40 | bema | 771.0 | 5/2 | 40 | gradus | 750.0 | 2 1/2 | 5/3 | 1.43 | 1/7 | 1/210 | |
48 | yard | 925.2 | 3 | 48 | yard | 900.0 | 3 | 2 | 1.71 | 6/35 | 1/175 | |
72 | xylon | 1387.8 | 9/2 | 72 | xylon | 1350.0 | 4 1/2 | 3 | 2.57 | 9/35 | 3/350 | |
80 | passus | 1542.0 | 5 | 80 | passus | 1500.0 | 5 | 10/3 | 2.86 | 2/7 | 1/105 | |
96 | orguia | 1850.4 | 6 | 96 | fathom | 1800.0 | 6 | 4 | 3.43 | 12/35 | 1/87 | |
160 | akaina | 3084 | 10 | 160 | decempeda | 3000 | 10 | 20/3 | 5.74 | 4/7 | 1/52 | |
264 | rod | 5088.6 | 17264 | rod | 4950 | 16 1/2 | 11 | 9.43 | 33/35 | 1/32 | ||
280 | hayt | 5397 | 18 | 280 | hayt | 5250 | 17 1/2 | 35/3 | 10 | 1 | 1/30 | |
1056 | perch | 20354.4 | 66 | 1056 | perch | 19800 | 66 | 44 | 37.7 | 132/35 | 1/8 | |
1600 | plthrn | 30840 | 100 | 1600 | plthrn | 30000 | 100 | 200/3 | 57 | 40/7 | 4/21 | |
1920 | actus | 37008 | 120 | 1920 | acts | 36000 | 120 | 80 | 68.57 | 48/7 | 8/35 | |
2800 | khet | 53970 | 175 | 2800 | khet | 52500 | 175 | 350/3 | 100 | 10 | 1/3 | |
3339 | ar | 64359 | 209 | 3339 | 3kr | 62606 | 2082/3 | 1113/8 | 119 | 477/40 | 31/78 | |
8400 | minute | 161910 | 525 | 8400 | minute | 157500 | 525 | 350 | 300 | 30 | 1 | |
9600 | stdn | 185040 | 600 | 9600 | stadion | 180000 | 600 | 400 | 343 | 240/7 | 8/7 | |
10000 | stdm | 192750 | 625 | 10000 | stdm | 187500 | 625 | 417 | 357 | 250/7 | 25/21 | |
10560 | frlng | 203544 | 660 | 10560 | frlng | 198000 | 660 | 440 | 377 | 38 | 44/35 | |
11520 | cable | 222048 | 720 | 11520 | cbl | 216000 | 720 | 480 | 411 | 288/7 | 48/35 | |
12000 | stade | 231300 | 750 | 12000 | std | 225000 | 750 | 500 | 429 | 300/7 | 10/7 | |
19200 | diaulos | 370080 | 1200 | 19200 | dls | 360000 | 1200 | 800 | 686 | 69 | 16/7 | |
80000 | milon | 1542m | 5000 | 80000 | ml | 1.5km | 5000 | 3333 | 2857 | 285 | 200/2 | |
84480 | mile | 1.6km | 5280 | 84480 | ml | 1.6km | 5280 | 3520 | 3017 | 302 | 352/35 | |
115200 | dlchs | 2.22km | 7200 | 115200 | dlchs | 2km | 7200 | 4800 | 4114 | 411 | 14 | |
280k | .5l | 5.4 | 17500 | 280000 | .5l | 5.3 | 17500 | 11667 | 10000 | 1000 | 33.3 | |
560k | l | 10.8km | 35000 | 560000 | l | 10.5km | 35000 | 23333 | 20000 | 2000 | 66 | |
576k | sch | 111 | 36000 | 576000 | shn | 10.8 | 36000 | 24000 | 20571 | 2057 | 69 | |
1280k | st | 2.5 | 80000 | 1280000 | st | 2.4 | 80000 | 53452 | 45714 | 4571 | 152 | |
6m | dgr | 111 | 359922 | 6m | dgr | 112.5 | 375000 | 250557 | 214285 | 21429 | 714 |
233. siraraki-ce3 dijir lagacki-a gu2 mu-un-na-si-si 234. na4 gen6-na kug la2-e-de3 gi-gur gen6-na gub-bu-de3 235. jicba-an inim gen6-na kur-kur-ra [cu] ba-an-ja2-ja2-ne" Vegaswikian 05:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC) reply
As you may have understood, in Wikipedia, discussions are resolved by consensus. It does not matter if you can read Sumerian, and understand hieroglyphs. Probably the common masses, i.e. Wikipedians, are not capable of understanding nor appreciating material of such extraordinary intelligence and knowledge that you are producing.
Whatever the reason, I suggest you go elsewhere. -- Egil 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
As the votes-for-deletion hopefully have shown, Wikipedia is not the right place for the type of material you are producing. I have given you a number of reasons before, and other Wikipedians have now also expressed their opinion.
We are not taking of burning of books. The Internet is full of places where you can put your content. Very many free of charge. I defintely suggest you move your material to other such locations before your valuable material is deleted.
As you may have understood, in Wikipedia, discussions are resolved by consensus. It does not matter if you can read Sumerian, and understand hieroglyphs. Probably the common masses, i.e. Wikipedians, are not capable of understanding nor appreciating material of such extraordinary intelligence and knowledge that you are producing.
Whatever the reason, I suggest you go elsewhere. -- Egil 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 13:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Same reason as for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Copper Age above. Additionally, this is utterly broken as a concept because the units were often dramatically different from city to city and from time to time, even in the same country. For anyone interested, see Medieval weights and measures. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
* Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative, good external links. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 13:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Same reason as for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Copper Age above. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
* Keep, Valuable, uses links to ancient maps and commentaries, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 12:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Same reason as for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Copper Age above. In this case, various values are filled in. But the entire concept of a table with exact 1/100 mm units is really meaningless. The subject is already covered, as mentioned. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Jemdet Nasr Units | Dilmun | Elam | Sumer | Akad | Mycenian | Egypt | Notes | |
Dilmun fingers | šu 15 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ||
Elamite fingers | ? | šusi 16.67 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ||
Sumerian fingers | ? | ? | shusi 17.67 | ? | ? | ? | ||
Akkadian fingers | ? | ? | ? | sheshi 20 | ? | ? | ||
Egyptian fingers | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | db 18.75 | ||
Mycenean fingers | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | daktylos 19.275 | ||
thumbs | 18 | 20 | 21.2 | uban 24 | ? | mtr 22.5 | ? | mtr = precise |
condylos | 30 | 33.3 | 35.3 | 40 | 37.5 | 38.55 | ||
palms | 60 | 66.67 | 70.67 | shepsi 80 | ? | ssp 75 | ? | |
hands | qat 75 | 83.33 | 88.33 | 100 | ? | drt 93.75 | ? | |
fists | 90 | 100 | 106 | 120 | ? | amm 112.5 | ? | |
spans | šu-dù-a 150 | zipaþ 166.67 | zapaþ šu.bad 176.67 | 200 | ? | spd 187.5 | ? | |
feet | ? | ? | ? | 300 | ? | bw 300 | ? | bw = 1 ft |
remen | ? | ? | ? | 353.53 | ? | rmn 375 | ? | |
small cubits | ? | ? | ? | 500 | ? | mh 450 | ? | |
large cubits | ? | ? | ? | nibw 600 | ? | mh 525 | ? | ni bw = 2 ft |
double remen | ? | ? | ? | 707 | ? | rmn750 |
Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 12:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable and not verifiable (no Google hits on Nick or Nicholas Diliani)- Silver149 09:18, 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 speedy. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Biography of an unknown troll, one of the most vandalized pages. Vanity, not notable. Avarik is a Star Wars character, a google search for Avarik, without "Star Wars", returns only 21 different results. Possible Speedy Deletion KevinGovaerts 10:36:41, 2005-08-05 (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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 14:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Just forvarding an anon VfD, the reason being not notable. feydey 11:02, 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 speedy keep. Nomination was based on a vandalised version of the article, not the actual article; nomination has been withdrawn. -- BD2412 talk 16:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Patent Nonsense
Botsie 11:10, 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 Keep -- Allen3 talk 12:51, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by Tony Sidaway. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
seems to be a hoax page. only linked to from List of subcultures, only has one edit in history, nothing remotly similar showing up when googling for related sites -- MilkMiruku 13:54, 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 keep (no consensus). For those interested in vote count there were 5 delete, 3 keep, and with no comments which sway me away from the "two-thirds" guideline, this article defaults to keep. There is however a concern about the verifiability of the subject, so it may appear on VFD again unless better sources are provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vandalism, surely Al 14:52, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No meaningful content except external link. Vanity? Psu256 15:00, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Editors, you are hereby served a cease and desist letter. Forget about deletion. Every word of the entry is factually true.
Below I enumerate my options: - Trying to Slashdot.org the news of this delete attempt. The /. site is read by a million plus geeks (free-as-in-speech advocated) people daily. They would be grossly enraged about such low in their beloved Wikipedia. - Telling BBC. They are not fond of the US humanwrongs-wise.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 12:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
nn local basketball club - but gently folks this is a first attempt -- Doc (?) 15:36, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
In its current state, it is just dump site for names.
lots of issues |
leave me a message
15:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
Improved, nomination withdrawn. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:59, 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 MERGE to Rathfarnham. Will do in a min. - Splash 00:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable pub. 80 google results.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 15:51, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:42, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Dentistry instructor. 3 Google hits. Possible vanity.
lots of issues | leave me a message 15:58, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable and website spam - Also poor (promotional) structure 172.214.177.252 15:59, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:38, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable/vanity/self promotion, related to Bronson Pharr and Bronson Pharr & Bronson Pharr Associates. Delete -- Etacar11 16:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Well, there are a lot of pages on Wikipedia that don't belong in an encyclopedia. You people obviously have a vendetta against Bronson Pharr. I say keep it. (Unsigned vote by 172.142.197.160 ( talk · contribs), first edit)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
A bio of a farmer. Likely relative wrote this entry. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:17, 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 merge and redirect to Aramean. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The Arameans are an extinct, possibly fictious nationality that is only mentioned in the Old Testament. The page in question lists 3 names and at one time listed 5 (2 were wrong). It serves no purpose and could *easily* be assimilated into the proper, existing Arameans page. HopeSeekr of xMule ( Talk) 16:30, 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 -- Allen3 talk 17:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete It's... an IRC channel. About Minnesota. With maybe 50 users. I think we're scraping the bottom of non-notability barrel here. Not to mention that WP:NOT a directory, which should apply to IRC and Usenet etc... channels just as much as phone numbers. Icelight 16:41, 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 SPEEDIED by Niteowlneils. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:41, August 6, 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 speedily deleted as a nonsense hoax which isn't very funny. FCYTravis 19:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Some guy just put up a fake bio
This is good Vote tampering by
Johntes (
talk ·
contribs) --
BMIComp
(talk,
HOWS MY DRIVING)
17:06, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Someone's personal spiritual theories. Not encyclopedic. DJ Clayworth 16:51, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Apparent Fanfiction, google brings up no hits and is not part of any Ultima background and should be deleted. RasputinAXP 16:51, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No vote. This article had a hugely messy previous VfD. It was overwhelmingly rewritten during the course of it, and the rewriter suggested relisting on VfD. There was only one useful vote subsequent to the rewrite, and thus I am taking the rewriter's advice. - Splash 16:57, 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 keep or merge, but not delete. Discussion of whether to keep or merge is for the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT crystal ball. Dunc| ☺ 17:06, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Nearly-coherent essay that, when you get down to it, is original research. Also it's poorly named. DS 17:18, 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 No consensus. – malathion talk 06:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The wife of a notable politician is not in and of herself notable. DS 17:31, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is nominated for deletion as I could find no evidence that the rank has ever in fact existed. During World War II, some British Generals were referred to as "Field marshals of the Indian Army" but were simply British Field Marshals in command of Indian troops. In addition, this is a one line article created by an anon user with no sources provided. - Husnock 17:32, 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 keep (but a less cumbersome title may be in order). -- BD2412 talk 05:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
50% nonsense, and when that's removed there's not much left. I don't see the point of the list. Tim Pope 18:09, 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 No consensus. -- Ryan Delaney talk 11:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity and non-encyclopedic Gorrister 19:01, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity Gorrister 19:03, 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 speedy. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity Gorrister 19:03, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Unsavable original research and amazingly POV. A few days ago, I deleted an obnoxious picture gallery that consisted of images of George W. Bush, Hitler, and the Holocaust (and I'm a solid Democrat, by the way). This article is the first of the 174 Google hits on "ontological guilt". Article is the sole contribution of User:Delita Figaro, who has not returned to defend her work. -- goethean ॐ 19:08, 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 No consensus. -- Ryan Delaney talk 11:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Simply being a character on Sesame Street does not confer notability. This character appears to be present in very few episodes and in limited capacity. Delete or Merge to Sesame Street. - Soltak 19:15, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
"Glamazon" is a fairly obvious portmanteau with lots of Google hits, but not when it's combined with what seem like keywords from this article, like "blankenship" or "talexia". Hoax? DS 19:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is an actual graphic novel, not a porn site. Please don't delete this. It means a lot to a lot of people to have this listed as an entry here. Thank you. (Unsigned vote by 24.117.199.139 ( talk · contribs))
Glamazon X is a comic book character familiar to gays in the South Mississippi area. Please don't delete this entry. (Unsigned vote by RWFanMS ( talk · contribs), second edit)
Okay, then, tell us more about her, and in what way she's relevant. This is what VfD is for. DS 01:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Bionic Bunny. The merging has already been done as a result of the VfD on that article, and the suggestion to merge to Arthur (cartoon) would seem redundant now that the author of that comment has voted to keep Bionic Bunny. - Splash 20:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Simply being a facet of Arthur does not confer notability, regardless of the prevalence of this item on the show. The show is notable, every character and plot device is not. Delete or Merge to
Arthur (cartoon). -
Soltak
19:22, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Simply being a character on Arthur does not confer notability, regardless of the prevalence of this character on the show. The show is notability, every character and plot device is not. Delete or Merge to
Arthur (cartoon). -
Soltak
19:20, 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 merge and redirect – Ryan Delaney talk 08:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Simply being a facet of Arthur does not confer notability, regardless of the prevalence of this item on the show. The show is notable, every character and plot device is not. Delete or Merge to Arthur (cartoon). - Soltak 19:21, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 16:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
neologism descriptive of the article creator. DS 19:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I suggest moving to Wiktionary. There were about 5500 Google hits, but it's a neologism for sure. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 20:07, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
WP:ISNOT a PHP manual. DS 19:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete or merge with another article on PHP. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 20:05, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Some bizarre conspiracy theory that lacks references ( Google , context, etc. Or maybe it's about a gaming clan. Dunc| ☺ 20:37, 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 copyvio. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
advertising, cut and paste from promotional text, obvious copyvio Sdedeo 20:51, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
But so far it has only 4 (yup a 96hr old website) not many more tomorrows here I think. -- Doc (?) 21:11, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable DJ, hoping his skills will expand. Official website is a MySpace page. the wub "?/!" 21:24, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This was put to VFD just a few weeks ago. However, it only received three votes, and I believe there was some confusion, so I'm nominating again (if anyone thinks this is inappropriate, please direct to my talk page). "Id entity" roto (Roto being a character in the story) receives just 20 Google hits. I understand it's been published, but being published doesn't necessarily mean it's notable enough. First VFD can be found below. ral 315 21:38, 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 keep. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 01:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was speedy deleted as nonsense, but was undeleted after discussion at WP:VFU. This appears to be some sort of cartoon. I myself am unsure of whether this cartoon is notable so no vote. If kept the article will need some wikifikation/cleanup. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 18 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
As it stands this article probably could be speedied, but I'm leaving it open to vote for the benefit of the poster. I have nothing against this snake or an article about it. However, the article doesn't tell me anything I can't figure out simply by looking at the name of the snake. -
Soltak
21:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
Keep. 60 google hits are enough for me.-- Fenice 21:54, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
ad page by anonymous user 69.104.40.172, whose only contribution is this article. Delete. Ken 21:43, 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 COPYVIO. Already in progress, and no offer yet of a new /Temp article. - Splash 00:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Patent advertisement. Furthermore, the articles's creator, 216.234.39.163 (contribs) has added Embanet's name to several other pages. While these other edits don't seem to be overt advertisements (with exception of Computer Based Training, which has also been VfD'd), I believe that any mention of Embanet should be removed from those articles as well. - D. Wu 21:41, 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 COPYVIO. Already in progress, and no offer yet of a new /Temp article. - Splash 00:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is patent advertisement, identical in text to Embanet (see above). - D. Wu 21:44, 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 keep. There is some small support for merge; that is not something on which this discussion need reach a conclusion. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 00:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Simply being a character on Sesame Street does not confer notability. This character appears to be present in very few episodes and in limited capacity. Delete or Merge to Sesame Street. - Soltak 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
There's a completely another meaning for Honker. The page was rewritten and if it needs a redirection, please feel free to add a tag. -- Yau 12:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 16:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Advertisement. Delete. Ken 22:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. Article was recreated soon after the previous deletion and has just now been noticed. Naconkantari e| t|| c| m 00:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This is essentially an advertisment for the corporation. The user who created the article is an employee [34]. While the company may not be insignificant, Wikipedia isn't designed to provide free ads. Additionally, this page was created not long after the previous deletion above! -- Scientizzle 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 12:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't make much sense to me. -- R.Koot 22:09, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
nn addon for WoW. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 22:22, 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. Does not fulfil WP:MUSIC either.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:36, 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 No consensus. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wind consultant firm. NN humble fool ® Deletion Reform 22:43, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research essay about the name of a town. Not notable or informative, terribly written, and doesn't need an article. Harro5 22:46, 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 speedy deleted (blanked by creator) -- cesarb 00:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The Reference Desk at WP:RD already exists, so having this page would be unnecessary. HappyCamper 23:02, 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Main character in non-notable webcomic. DS 23:12, 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 KEEP. But I am going to move it per Vegaswikian since the article uses the name s/he suggests. - Splash 20:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. No attempt is even made to assert notability. Article simply states the location of the radio station. - Soltak 23:20, 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
there's no way this could ever be NPOV, and the article certaintly starts that way, with its one member being PETA Sdedeo 23:23, 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 No consensus. – malathion talk 06:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Bias propaganda selectively citing reports of abuse by U.S. Marines. This information is covered in the page on Fallujah and so (1) does not need it's own entry, and (2) even if it did this shouldn't be it. As a person who spent a long time in Fallujah (not during the attack in question) I am willing to admit not all the acts by US soldiers in Iraq may be morally acceptable. However, I would argue most are and that this entry well over-exaggerates the bad behavior of US soldiers in Iraq. It was also my experience in Iraq that a large amount of the reports given to the media by Iraqis were themselves lies or exaggerations. Heck, I've even been to the hospital cited in this article.
There is a valid place for criticism of U.S. actions in Iraq, but this entry is just rampant nonsense. [Delete]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delee -- Allen3 talk 11:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. No relevant Google hits that I can find. Reminds me of the ole Rompin' Stompin' that we had in the early 1980s. Those, too, had less than a ten-year lifespan. The article states that the "T.T.C.C. now faces extinction". Should this article meet that same fate? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 23:42, 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Minor character in non-notable webcomic. Although the description "we can rebuild him! Make him faster, stronger, smarter -" "Actually, our budget's been cut. We can make him faster and stronger, but that's it" is funny, I'll admit. DS 23:44, 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
see Meca-Zonic. DS 23:47, 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 merge with Abrasive Waterjet Cutter (which is the target article for the redirect at water jet (machining), then redirect to water jet. Alright, I'll see what I can do. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Some sort of new user test, non-verifiable info EdwinHJ | Talk 23:47, 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
see Matt McCormic, Meca-Zonic et al. DS 23:49, 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity page, nonnotable band EdwinHJ | Talk 23:55, 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 SPEEDIED by Dpbsmith. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
No potential to become encyclopedic because the title intrinsically favors the point of view that soft drinks are addictive. No source citations of any kind given. Personal essay? And: help me here... wasn't something almost identical to this previously voted for deletion? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:55, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Article about a non-notable Portugese language forum. Seems borderline speedy from a cursory reading, but the anon users working the page don't seem to like the tag I added, so we'll try VfD instead.. Delete. Ken 00:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
My vote is not to delete this. Chupa-mos.Com is more than a forum. Is a way of life. Chupa-mos is a totally brand all known between Portuguese Internet users and the way this forum is reflected on real life is notorious. (Preceding unsigned comment originally by 194.65.16.130 18:10, August 9, 2005 UTC, then altered by L0rd Rayd3n 18:14, August 9, 2005UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 15:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
'cos it's bollocks -- Doc (?) 00:07, 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 REDIRECT to La Hire. Although I voted here, I do not think I have a conflict of interest since the nomination was withdrawn and the voting unanimous. - Splash 19:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Quick googling on "La Here" "giant" gives a couple of hundred hits about Los Angeles. Hoax? DS 00:18, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term. Bgeer 00:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Hetep and Respect Bgeer and Good Spirits
Thanks for you interest in this article and your advise and council. I just came back from rewriting the cultural poisoning article (I hope you can find time to take a look). I have read all your comments and reread what I wrote and I am shocked.
My bad, as the young people say. I made a number of errors contextual and otherwise. If I had to vote again (I know I can't do that) I would "vote keep but rewrite" myself. Give me a minute to get my rewrite pen out and fix some of the errors you have pointed out.
I wrote this early version of the article when I first came to wikipedia. I am up here, on and off, for less then two weeks. Most of my time has been spent learning wiki and the rules. I think I am starting to get the hang of it and would like to thank everyone for your help.
-- Aunk 11:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Aunk 18:23, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term. Bgeer 00:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Bgeer in his Vfd said:"…This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term…"
There are three claims in Bgeer's two-sentence comment.
1. Cultural Poisoning is a neologism
2. The article describes Aunk's original research
3. Aunk has not provided evidence that some one other then he, uses the term
First let me say I appreciate Bgeer's interest in cultural literacy. For those who do not know Hetep (sometimes pronounced Hotep, means peace). Bgeer I think you jumped the gun. I was having a similar discussion on the discussion page with individuals interested in the article. I am new but was getting ready to make adjustments to the stub. But let me respond directly to your concerns.
1. Cultural Poisoning is a neologism
This is a debatable assertion. See info from wiki below. The difference between debatable and deleteable is considerable. "…When a word or phrase is no longer "new," it is no longer a neologism…. Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to no longer be considered a neologism; cultural acceptance probably plays a more important role than time in this regard…" [2]
Cultural acceptance is important. This phrase is accepted in the African American community. I have not run across an African American in cyberspace or on the ground that asserts cultural poisoning does not exist in the African American community. In addition many other ethnic groups use this phrase as a google test verifies. [3]
"Yesterday's neologisms, like yesterday's jargon, are often today's essential vocabulary." – Academic Instincts, 2001[1]
The phrase cultural poisoning is essential vocabulary in the cultural literacy discussion of today. See quote from wikipedian below.
"…used frequently in the cultural literacy cult, I've also seen it in Eastern journalism decrying the poisoning of their culture by Western influences…" user: Jareth.:. see his vote and comment below:.
2. The article describes Aunk's original research
The article has been rewritten as source-based research. See wiki policy below.
"…Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia…"
All information listed under references , in the article comply with following wiki policy.
"… it is essential that any primary-source material used in an article has been published or otherwise made available to people who do not rely on Wikipedia…"
The other reason that "original research" should not apply to this article is as follows.
Aunk is writing as and expert on the terms Cultural Health, Cultural literacy and cultural poisoning as they related to the African American community. See the applicable wiki rule below.
"…No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. They should refer to themselves and their publications in the third person and write from a neutral point of view (NPOV)…"
3. Aunk has not provided evidence that some one other then he, uses the term
See google test [4] cultural poisoning -aunk -wikipedia 500,000 googles
See quote from page 3 not by Aunk
The Virginian Pilot Ledger-Star, May 4, 1986: Note: Straight ASCII ... In so doing, boomer comedians have become the antidote to a severe case of cultural poisoning,people to whom the baby boom generation probably owes what ... www.richmonder.com/charbeneau/editorial/boomhum.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
See quote from google page 3 not by aunk
Jihad Watch: Terror group threatens Dutch with 'Islamic earthquake' We are starting to experience the first stage of cultural poisoning, the noxious effects are just starting to manifest themselves in truly frightening ways ... www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002866.php - Similar pages
See quote from wikipedian below.
"…used frequently in the cultural literacy cult, I've also seen it in Eastern journalism decrying the poisoning of their culture by Western influences…" user: Jareth.:. see his vote and comment below:.
--
Aunk
23:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
VBB Forums-cruft. If we're to delete those - and we should - then this should go too. DS 00:24, 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 KEEP. Although I voted here, I don't think I have a conflict of interest since the nomination was withdrawn and the voting unanimous. - Splash 19:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not needed, wikipedia isnt a list of little tiny towns 2mcm 00:47, 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 merge and redirect to infantilism. – malathion talk 06:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ABDL the creator of that page removed the redirect [5] and pointed to this page. Which was also a redirect until it was removed [6]. Either delete, or redirect and protect. brenneman (t) (c) 01:24, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:42, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Eighteen-year-old wanna-be politician, entering Tuskogee this fall. Good luck on that political career (especially as a Democrat in Oklahoma), but he shouldn't get an article until he wins at least ONE election. Calton | Talk 01:46, 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 keep (no consensus). A very slight majority for deletion, but no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
"Sacred Heart School" gets ~85,000 google hits. It's gonna take an amazing disambiguation page to straighten them all out some day. Not notable. Delete. Or at least rename to something more specific. Or maybe this could be made into a list of all schools named Sacred Heart. -- Mwanner 02:02, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity Page Lcuff 02:03, 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 KEEP. - Splash 19:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Comic book fancruft. Lazyhound 02:12, 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 SPEEDIED by Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. -- malathion talk 02:15, 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 KEEP. - Splash 19:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Completing nomination begun by DragonflySixtyseven. If this is a real place, it should be kept (but add enough text so that the pics don't overwhelm the thing). -- BD2412 talk 02:31, 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 COPYVIO. Already listed. - Splash 20:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising,nn-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:33, 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 speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable neologism.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:38, 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 keep because of ongoing copyvio investigation and lack of valid votes in this discussion. The only vote that I see here that I can count is Capitalistroadster's.
If not for the copyvio, I would have extended discussion. If it survives WP:CP, I will probably relist. Somebody remind me should I forget. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 22:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity, definite copyvio, not notable (win the election first) 128.112.24.137 03:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
speedy keep, high-profile race in Westchester. Voters have a right to find out information about the candidates. This makes it easier for them to do so.
speedy keep, I wrote the biography, posted it on the website and hold the exclusive right to use it. There is no copyright violation here. By posting the biography on this page I authorized it's use on 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 keep (no consensus). This one is very difficult, because there are a number of votes from users with very low edit counts. In particular the nomination is by an anonymous user, and the two last keep votes are both from users whos' votes are among their earliest edits. Nonetheless, all these users appear to have been making legitimate edits as well, and all were created before this VFD started. Because of this, and also with the "when in doubt, don't delete"-rule in mind, I will accept all the votes. The main concern here has been verifiability, I will therefore add a {{verify}}-tag on the article. If no verification is provided, the article may well be listed on VFD again in the near future. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
probable hoax; google returns only a few mentions (less than a page) all of which are dubious touristic sites. 128.112.24.137 03:40, 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 keep. If someone would like to merge it, feel free to be bold. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I hate spammers too, but to be kept the article should be encyclopedic, not ranty. 128.112.24.137 03:41, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism. 0 google hits.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:47, 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 the article was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC) reply
NN, possibly advertising-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:52, 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 agree with speedy. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
actually, Sarah Weatherly Brannon did not win the Nobel Prize at 29. (Fake article) 128.112.24.137 03:49, 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 the article was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC) reply
By definition, not more notable than the average college professor. 128.112.24.137 03:53, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Happy Turtle was an ad for a computer game that apparently does not exist 128.112.24.137 03:56, 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 MERGE to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. Already done, so just applying redirect. - Splash 20:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Tremendously obscure Star Wars trivia. 128.112.24.137 03:57, 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 SPEEDY A7. Essjay · Talk 10:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Shane McMullen is being picked on by his friends in Oz. 128.112.24.137 03:58, 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 -- Allen3 talk 15:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
The company appears to be real, but unencyclopedic. Probably just advertising. CJCurrie 04:19, 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 KEEP. Already has cleanup tag. I added some stub-sorts. - Splash 20:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
not notable 128.112.24.137 04:18, 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 merge and redirect to Big Brother. – malathion talk 06:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Is there going to be a page for every single contestant in every single "Big Brother" sequel or spin-off? 128.112.24.137 04:18, 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 -- Allen3 talk 14:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Harvard Crimson Headline: Yalies Make Spoof Page 128.112.24.137 04:19, 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 Keep -- Allen3 talk 14:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
vanity, creator of article shares name with subject; no case for notability. 128.112.24.137 04:21, 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 -- Allen3 talk 14:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable photographer vanity. Gets 130 unique Googles and not all are him (and some are ads). He "...captures what is inside the subject, almost making their aura visible." - Splash 05:16, 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 -- Allen3 talk 14:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
NN nonsense, or just something highly notable that I have never heard of? If the former then delete JeremyA (talk) 05:16, 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 -- Allen3 talk 14:11, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
"Liquivore" got me 8 unique google hits. Maybe something from fiction, but if so, a pretty minor thing. Any sci-fi themed thing that only gets 8 hits is miniscule (hell, typing "darth" and then 4 random letters would probably yield more hits). I guess it has something to do with Alien Planet? Maybe a merge somewhere, but I think deletion is probably preferable. - R. fiend 05:18, 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 -- Allen3 talk 14:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I am unclear on whether copyvio extends to album summaries from Amazon. In any case, this article is mere promotional blurb and is not an article. We should start over. - Splash 05:22, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
non-notable, just silly Sean Black 05:32, 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 shower with speedy deletion. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Patent Nonsense User:XD 04:41, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:51, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity article, non-notable group EdwinHJ | Talk 05:59, 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 speedied by Longhair. — Cryptic (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable high school band conductor, vanity Sdedeo 06:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
then why does the school have an entry? it is not famous in anyway Andrew D White 06:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I am not I simply was noting one of the more famious people from my town I included more of her bio so you can see why I attempted to add this and thought it would be a good addition Andrew D White 06:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I could argue that most of the living people here do not fall in all these categories and that wouldnt make me any more right or wrong than the people who included them maby i should mave a call to delete 30% of the bios here because they are not famous in my part of the world. In defense of this articel though, I would say that she qualifies for: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" Andrew D White 07:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I also added another reason for the "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" point (these can all be verfied throught the Newspaper"The Daily Item" which is published in Sunbury, PA Andrew D White 07:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Ok I am in a more civil mood now an I am open to discuessing this. It may have at first looked like a vanity page but that is due to how I write (I save a lot to ensure that hardware failrure at my end will not end up with the loss of hours of work which cannot be recovered. Andrew D White 07:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
How mutch more notibalit do you want? I am not sure how many more of her notiable events I can publish without it being orrigional research like training some of the members of Breaking Benjamin.(not sure if that even made into a newspaper) Andrew D White 16:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I will agree to this Only if you all stop the character assiniation. I dont like it when people make personal attacks on me. Andrew D White 23:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
(I am refering mostly to the last two comments) Andrew D White 23:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know that is qualifies for speedy deletion due to it having a remote plasuablity. "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." Andrew D White 01:12, August 6, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:45, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
vanity, refers to a self-published book of poems Sdedeo 06:36, 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 speedily deleted per WP:NOT a how-to guide for would-be experimenters in things that blow your head off if you're not careful. FCYTravis 08:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
PICRIC ACID IS VERY SCARY and also Wikipedia is not a textbook/cookbook Sdedeo 06:36, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
advertisement Sdedeo 06:37, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
lengthy article about the founder of a rural Canadian insurance firm, which currently has a staff of nine: [19]. Not notable. EvilPhoenix talk 06:55, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy, but I don't see it. Looks like vanity, but I'll submit it to the community; there seeems to be a strong assertion of notability. No vote. Dmcdevit· t 06:45, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy as vanity, but I see a real assertion of notability in the list of honors and publications. No vote. -- Dmcdevit· t 06:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep Real prominence in specific field (Family Law) unlikely to be vanity per se (individual known to be not a web person!) and significant in academic circles stated. Honours and publications are notable.-- Silver149 07:10, 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 No consensus. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Minor automotive photographer, with gushy bio. Delete. Calton | Talk 06:58, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Minor-league digital-video filmmaker & wannabe professional photographer. Calton | Talk 06:59, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:32, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion because I judge this to be advertising, and as such it's a violation of Section 1.4.3 of WP:NOT The Literate Engineer 07:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Author's Response
I personally do not see how this is advertising, as, unless someone hits the page using "Random article" (and what are the chances of that?), they aren't going to stumble upon the page without actually looking for more information about the game itself.
Screenshots and the website for the game are due out in just a couple of weeks, and it is only a couple of months before the game makes its debut.
You say that Wikipedia is not a "Crystal Ball," and yet there are tons of pages about upcoming movie, music, and game releases. The only reason you are against my example of it is because I come from a very small, independent game company, which doesn't give me the same kind of voice.
I've had the same problem getting information about the game published on game websites--no one believes me. Yet this game has been in development for over a year, and is very far from an amateur attempt at an MMORPG. We have a rather large and fully capable team of coders, designers, modelers, and writers who have given enormous quantities of their time over the past year making this project a reality.
Delete it if you must, it'll just be recreated again when the game comes out this winter. Instead of trying to destroy every attempt at deleting every page that might be some kind of indirect advertisement, just have some trust, for once, and let the information about the game be out there for your audience to see.
That's all I'll say, and if you, the editors, still are not convinced, you are more than welcome to delete the page.
End of (unsigned) author's response
Second Author Response I have saved a copy of the article in .odt form on my computer, so feel free to delete it now. However, I still think that all of you are being absolutely ridiculous, not to mention completely hypocritical. The only reason I'm being treated this way is because I represent such a small game studio! Frag 11:46, 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 speedily deleted as unintelligible nonsense, potential hoax. WPCR is a real radio station, but it's in New Hampshire, not Nashville. FCYTravis 19:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Radio station that does not assert any kind of regional notability. It's also practically illegible. EvilPhoenix talk 07:09, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
This is advertising for a feature of a chain of electronics stores in Sweden, Kjell & Company, which also has an article. I have asked for input about Kjell & Company at the Swedish Wikipedians' notice board and will put off nominating that one for a while. Uppland 07:20, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
The article is for something that is not of enough importance to have its own article, it should be deleted or merged with the main spongebob article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSeer ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 5 August 2005
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 20:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Marked as vanity speedy, but it's a band. No vote. Dmcdevit· t 07:22, 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 speedy delete. – malathion talk 06:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for CSD as band vanity, but there's no such criterion. No vote. Dmcdevit· t 07:52, 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 Keep. --08:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Tagged for CSD as band vanity, but there's no such criterion. No vote. Dmcdevit· t 07:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
No change of vote. Capitalistroadster 06:16, 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 speedily deleted as nonsense hoax or no claim to notability, whichever you prefer. Good catch, Szyslak. FCYTravis 08:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No Google hits for "eddie "centrino" forgacs" or eddie centrino forgacs. I don't know about the rest of you, but I smell a hoax. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:58, 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 No consensus. -- Ryan Delaney talk 11:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, and sounds awfully like advertising. Forum isn't even big. x42bn6 08:25, 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 -- Allen3 talk 13:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
An evangelical Christian youth event in Britain; there are thousands of these around the world. Doesn't seem notable. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
3000 is big for the uk... (Note: Unsigned comment by 82.32.80.168 ( talk · contribs); user's first edit.)
Eh, I don't think it's a valid arguement, but Bonus Stage only recieves 2000-3000 hits a week. Note: Timestamp? Sorry, I'm no good at Wiki'ing -- 82.33.194.36 09:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 13:08, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Same reason as for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Modern West etc yesterday. Additionally, the entire idea of comparing these units in a table by mm equivalent is at fault. Some of these units were very precise, some were quite variable and uncertain over times. Finally, these units are already covered by Ancient weights and measures and sub-articles, to the degree these articles have survived the contributions of this same anon. Sorry for the rant, but I get tired of being his janitor. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
* Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative, excellent links. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)
[ Ancient_Weights_and_Measures]
Indo European Mycenean Minoan Greek | unit | AfroAsiatic Egyptian | unit | |||||||||
fngr | unit | mm | ft | fngrs | unit | mm | ft | cbts | ryl cbts | hayt | minutes | |
1 | daktylos | 19.3 | 1/16 | 1 | uu | 18.8 | 1/16 | 1 24 | 1/28 | 1/280 | 1/8400 | |
1.4 | u | 19.3 | 1/16 | 1.35 | u | 25.3 | 25/296 | 25/444 | 5/1036 | 1/6216 | ||
1.3 | nail | 19.3 | 1/16 | 1.33 | inch | 25 | 1/12 | 1/18 | 1/21 | 1/210 | 1/6300 | |
2 | condylos | 38.6 | 1/8 | 2 | mnw | 37.5 | 1/8 | 1/12 | 1/14 | 1/140 | 1/4200 | |
3 | ? | 57.8 | 3/16 | 3 | špsi | 56.3 | 1/5 | 1/8 | 3/28 | 3/280 | 1/2800 | |
4 | palaiste | 77.1 | 1/4 | 4 | wršpsiwaw | 75.0 | 1/4 | 1/6 | 1/7 | 1/70 | 1/2100 | |
5 | ? | 96.4 | 5/16 | 5 | pt t | 93.8 | 1/3 | 5/24 | 5/28 | 1/56 | 1/1680 | |
6 | ? | 115.7 | 3/8 | 6 | sb3 | 112.5 | 3/8 | 1/4 | 3/14 | 3/140 | 1/1400 | |
7 | ? | 134.9 | 7/16 | 7 | spdw | 131.3 | 4/9 | 7/24 | 1/4 | 1/40 | 1/1200 | |
8 | dichas | 154.2 | 1/2 | 8 | mh | 150.0 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 2/7 | 1/35 | 1/1050 | |
9 | ? | 173.5 | 9/16 | 9 | dsfirrm | 168.8 | 4/7 | 3/8 | 9/28 | 9/280 | 3/2800 | |
10 | ? | 192.8 | 5/8 | 10 | tm3<tsf | 187.5 | 5/8 | 5/12 | 5/14 | 1/28 | 1/840 | |
11 | ? | 212 | 11/16 | 11 | r< | 206 | 2/3 | 11/24 | 11/28 | 11/280 | 11/8400 | |
12 | spithame | 231.3 | 3/4 | 12 | swtu | 225.0 | 3/4 | 1/2 | 3/7 | 3/70 | 1/700 | |
13 | ? | 250.6 | 13/16 | 13 | pa | 243.8 | 4/5 | 13/24 | 13/28 | 13/280 | 13/8400 | |
14 | ? | 269.9 | 7/8 | 14 | thoth | 262.5 | 7/8 | 7/12 | 1/2 | 1/20 | 1/600 | |
15 | ? | 289.1 | 15/16 | 15 | šsp | 281.3 | 1 | 5/8 | 15/28 | 3/56 | 1/560 | |
16 | pous | 308.4 | 1 | 16 | mhtf | 300.0 | 1 | 2/3 | 4/7 | 2/35 | 1/525 | |
17 | ? | 327.7 | 1 | 17 | sa | 318.8 | 1 | 17/24 | 17/28 | 17/280 | 17/8400 | |
18 | ? | 347.0 | 1 | 18 | imi | 337.5 | 1 | 3/4 | 9/14 | 9/140 | 3/1400 | |
19 | ? | 366.2 | 1 | 19 | m | 356.3 | 1 | 1/5 | 19/24 | 19/28 | 19/280 | 19/8400 |
20 | pygon | 385.5 | 5/4 | 20 | Nbthyt | 375.0 | 11/4 | 5/6 | 5/7 | 1/14 | 1/420 | |
21 | ? | 404.8 | 21/16 | 21 | sth | 393.8 | 1 1/3 | 7/8 | 3/4 | 3/40 | 1/400 | |
22 | ? | 424.1 | 11/8 | 22 | sts | 412.5 | 13/8 | 11/12 | 11/14 | 11/140 | 11/4200 | |
23 | ? | 443.3 | 23/16 | 23 | stir | 431.3 | 14/9 | 23/24 | 23/28 | 23/280 | 23/8400 | |
24 | pechya | 462.6 | 3/2 | 24 | ptah | 450.0 | 1 1/2 | 1 | 6/7 | 3/35 | 1/350 | |
25 | ? | 481.9 | 25/16 | 25 | gb | 468.8 | 1 4/7 | 1 | 25/28 | 5/56 | 1/336 | |
25.6 | mcts | 493.4 | 8/5 | 25.6 | ma | 480 | 13/5 | 16/15 | 32/35 | 16/175 | 8/2625 | |
26 | ? | 501.2 | 1 3/8 | 26 | k33 | 487.5 | 15/8 | 13/12 | 13/14 | 13/140 | 13/4200 | |
27 | ? | 520.4 | 27/16 | 27 | m3<t | 506.3 | 1 2/3 | 9/8 | 27/28 | 27/280 | 9/2800 | |
28 | royal cubit | 539.7 | 7/4 | 28 | re | 525.0 | 1 3/4 | 7/6 | 1.00 | 1/10 | 1/300 | |
40 | bema | 771.0 | 5/2 | 40 | gradus | 750.0 | 2 1/2 | 5/3 | 1.43 | 1/7 | 1/210 | |
48 | yard | 925.2 | 3 | 48 | yard | 900.0 | 3 | 2 | 1.71 | 6/35 | 1/175 | |
72 | xylon | 1387.8 | 9/2 | 72 | xylon | 1350.0 | 4 1/2 | 3 | 2.57 | 9/35 | 3/350 | |
80 | passus | 1542.0 | 5 | 80 | passus | 1500.0 | 5 | 10/3 | 2.86 | 2/7 | 1/105 | |
96 | orguia | 1850.4 | 6 | 96 | fathom | 1800.0 | 6 | 4 | 3.43 | 12/35 | 1/87 | |
160 | akaina | 3084 | 10 | 160 | decempeda | 3000 | 10 | 20/3 | 5.74 | 4/7 | 1/52 | |
264 | rod | 5088.6 | 17264 | rod | 4950 | 16 1/2 | 11 | 9.43 | 33/35 | 1/32 | ||
280 | hayt | 5397 | 18 | 280 | hayt | 5250 | 17 1/2 | 35/3 | 10 | 1 | 1/30 | |
1056 | perch | 20354.4 | 66 | 1056 | perch | 19800 | 66 | 44 | 37.7 | 132/35 | 1/8 | |
1600 | plthrn | 30840 | 100 | 1600 | plthrn | 30000 | 100 | 200/3 | 57 | 40/7 | 4/21 | |
1920 | actus | 37008 | 120 | 1920 | acts | 36000 | 120 | 80 | 68.57 | 48/7 | 8/35 | |
2800 | khet | 53970 | 175 | 2800 | khet | 52500 | 175 | 350/3 | 100 | 10 | 1/3 | |
3339 | ar | 64359 | 209 | 3339 | 3kr | 62606 | 2082/3 | 1113/8 | 119 | 477/40 | 31/78 | |
8400 | minute | 161910 | 525 | 8400 | minute | 157500 | 525 | 350 | 300 | 30 | 1 | |
9600 | stdn | 185040 | 600 | 9600 | stadion | 180000 | 600 | 400 | 343 | 240/7 | 8/7 | |
10000 | stdm | 192750 | 625 | 10000 | stdm | 187500 | 625 | 417 | 357 | 250/7 | 25/21 | |
10560 | frlng | 203544 | 660 | 10560 | frlng | 198000 | 660 | 440 | 377 | 38 | 44/35 | |
11520 | cable | 222048 | 720 | 11520 | cbl | 216000 | 720 | 480 | 411 | 288/7 | 48/35 | |
12000 | stade | 231300 | 750 | 12000 | std | 225000 | 750 | 500 | 429 | 300/7 | 10/7 | |
19200 | diaulos | 370080 | 1200 | 19200 | dls | 360000 | 1200 | 800 | 686 | 69 | 16/7 | |
80000 | milon | 1542m | 5000 | 80000 | ml | 1.5km | 5000 | 3333 | 2857 | 285 | 200/2 | |
84480 | mile | 1.6km | 5280 | 84480 | ml | 1.6km | 5280 | 3520 | 3017 | 302 | 352/35 | |
115200 | dlchs | 2.22km | 7200 | 115200 | dlchs | 2km | 7200 | 4800 | 4114 | 411 | 14 | |
280k | .5l | 5.4 | 17500 | 280000 | .5l | 5.3 | 17500 | 11667 | 10000 | 1000 | 33.3 | |
560k | l | 10.8km | 35000 | 560000 | l | 10.5km | 35000 | 23333 | 20000 | 2000 | 66 | |
576k | sch | 111 | 36000 | 576000 | shn | 10.8 | 36000 | 24000 | 20571 | 2057 | 69 | |
1280k | st | 2.5 | 80000 | 1280000 | st | 2.4 | 80000 | 53452 | 45714 | 4571 | 152 | |
6m | dgr | 111 | 359922 | 6m | dgr | 112.5 | 375000 | 250557 | 214285 | 21429 | 714 |
233. siraraki-ce3 dijir lagacki-a gu2 mu-un-na-si-si 234. na4 gen6-na kug la2-e-de3 gi-gur gen6-na gub-bu-de3 235. jicba-an inim gen6-na kur-kur-ra [cu] ba-an-ja2-ja2-ne" Vegaswikian 05:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC) reply
As you may have understood, in Wikipedia, discussions are resolved by consensus. It does not matter if you can read Sumerian, and understand hieroglyphs. Probably the common masses, i.e. Wikipedians, are not capable of understanding nor appreciating material of such extraordinary intelligence and knowledge that you are producing.
Whatever the reason, I suggest you go elsewhere. -- Egil 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
As the votes-for-deletion hopefully have shown, Wikipedia is not the right place for the type of material you are producing. I have given you a number of reasons before, and other Wikipedians have now also expressed their opinion.
We are not taking of burning of books. The Internet is full of places where you can put your content. Very many free of charge. I defintely suggest you move your material to other such locations before your valuable material is deleted.
As you may have understood, in Wikipedia, discussions are resolved by consensus. It does not matter if you can read Sumerian, and understand hieroglyphs. Probably the common masses, i.e. Wikipedians, are not capable of understanding nor appreciating material of such extraordinary intelligence and knowledge that you are producing.
Whatever the reason, I suggest you go elsewhere. -- Egil 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 13:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Same reason as for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Copper Age above. Additionally, this is utterly broken as a concept because the units were often dramatically different from city to city and from time to time, even in the same country. For anyone interested, see Medieval weights and measures. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
* Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative, good external links. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 13:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Same reason as for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Copper Age above. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
* Keep, Valuable, uses links to ancient maps and commentaries, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 12:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Same reason as for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Copper Age above. In this case, various values are filled in. But the entire concept of a table with exact 1/100 mm units is really meaningless. The subject is already covered, as mentioned. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Jemdet Nasr Units | Dilmun | Elam | Sumer | Akad | Mycenian | Egypt | Notes | |
Dilmun fingers | šu 15 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ||
Elamite fingers | ? | šusi 16.67 | ? | ? | ? | ? | ||
Sumerian fingers | ? | ? | shusi 17.67 | ? | ? | ? | ||
Akkadian fingers | ? | ? | ? | sheshi 20 | ? | ? | ||
Egyptian fingers | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | db 18.75 | ||
Mycenean fingers | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | daktylos 19.275 | ||
thumbs | 18 | 20 | 21.2 | uban 24 | ? | mtr 22.5 | ? | mtr = precise |
condylos | 30 | 33.3 | 35.3 | 40 | 37.5 | 38.55 | ||
palms | 60 | 66.67 | 70.67 | shepsi 80 | ? | ssp 75 | ? | |
hands | qat 75 | 83.33 | 88.33 | 100 | ? | drt 93.75 | ? | |
fists | 90 | 100 | 106 | 120 | ? | amm 112.5 | ? | |
spans | šu-dù-a 150 | zipaþ 166.67 | zapaþ šu.bad 176.67 | 200 | ? | spd 187.5 | ? | |
feet | ? | ? | ? | 300 | ? | bw 300 | ? | bw = 1 ft |
remen | ? | ? | ? | 353.53 | ? | rmn 375 | ? | |
small cubits | ? | ? | ? | 500 | ? | mh 450 | ? | |
large cubits | ? | ? | ? | nibw 600 | ? | mh 525 | ? | ni bw = 2 ft |
double remen | ? | ? | ? | 707 | ? | rmn750 |
Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 12:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable and not verifiable (no Google hits on Nick or Nicholas Diliani)- Silver149 09:18, 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 speedy. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 19:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Biography of an unknown troll, one of the most vandalized pages. Vanity, not notable. Avarik is a Star Wars character, a google search for Avarik, without "Star Wars", returns only 21 different results. Possible Speedy Deletion KevinGovaerts 10:36:41, 2005-08-05 (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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 14:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Just forvarding an anon VfD, the reason being not notable. feydey 11:02, 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 speedy keep. Nomination was based on a vandalised version of the article, not the actual article; nomination has been withdrawn. -- BD2412 talk 16:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Patent Nonsense
Botsie 11:10, 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 Keep -- Allen3 talk 12:51, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by Tony Sidaway. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
seems to be a hoax page. only linked to from List of subcultures, only has one edit in history, nothing remotly similar showing up when googling for related sites -- MilkMiruku 13:54, 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 keep (no consensus). For those interested in vote count there were 5 delete, 3 keep, and with no comments which sway me away from the "two-thirds" guideline, this article defaults to keep. There is however a concern about the verifiability of the subject, so it may appear on VFD again unless better sources are provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vandalism, surely Al 14:52, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No meaningful content except external link. Vanity? Psu256 15:00, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Editors, you are hereby served a cease and desist letter. Forget about deletion. Every word of the entry is factually true.
Below I enumerate my options: - Trying to Slashdot.org the news of this delete attempt. The /. site is read by a million plus geeks (free-as-in-speech advocated) people daily. They would be grossly enraged about such low in their beloved Wikipedia. - Telling BBC. They are not fond of the US humanwrongs-wise.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 12:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
nn local basketball club - but gently folks this is a first attempt -- Doc (?) 15:36, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
In its current state, it is just dump site for names.
lots of issues |
leave me a message
15:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
Improved, nomination withdrawn. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:59, 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 MERGE to Rathfarnham. Will do in a min. - Splash 00:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable pub. 80 google results.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 15:51, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:42, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Dentistry instructor. 3 Google hits. Possible vanity.
lots of issues | leave me a message 15:58, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable and website spam - Also poor (promotional) structure 172.214.177.252 15:59, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:38, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable/vanity/self promotion, related to Bronson Pharr and Bronson Pharr & Bronson Pharr Associates. Delete -- Etacar11 16:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Well, there are a lot of pages on Wikipedia that don't belong in an encyclopedia. You people obviously have a vendetta against Bronson Pharr. I say keep it. (Unsigned vote by 172.142.197.160 ( talk · contribs), first edit)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 12:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
A bio of a farmer. Likely relative wrote this entry. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:17, 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 merge and redirect to Aramean. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The Arameans are an extinct, possibly fictious nationality that is only mentioned in the Old Testament. The page in question lists 3 names and at one time listed 5 (2 were wrong). It serves no purpose and could *easily* be assimilated into the proper, existing Arameans page. HopeSeekr of xMule ( Talk) 16:30, 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 -- Allen3 talk 17:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete It's... an IRC channel. About Minnesota. With maybe 50 users. I think we're scraping the bottom of non-notability barrel here. Not to mention that WP:NOT a directory, which should apply to IRC and Usenet etc... channels just as much as phone numbers. Icelight 16:41, 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 SPEEDIED by Niteowlneils. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:41, August 6, 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 speedily deleted as a nonsense hoax which isn't very funny. FCYTravis 19:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Some guy just put up a fake bio
This is good Vote tampering by
Johntes (
talk ·
contribs) --
BMIComp
(talk,
HOWS MY DRIVING)
17:06, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Someone's personal spiritual theories. Not encyclopedic. DJ Clayworth 16:51, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Apparent Fanfiction, google brings up no hits and is not part of any Ultima background and should be deleted. RasputinAXP 16:51, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
No vote. This article had a hugely messy previous VfD. It was overwhelmingly rewritten during the course of it, and the rewriter suggested relisting on VfD. There was only one useful vote subsequent to the rewrite, and thus I am taking the rewriter's advice. - Splash 16:57, 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 keep or merge, but not delete. Discussion of whether to keep or merge is for the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT crystal ball. Dunc| ☺ 17:06, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Nearly-coherent essay that, when you get down to it, is original research. Also it's poorly named. DS 17:18, 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 No consensus. – malathion talk 06:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The wife of a notable politician is not in and of herself notable. DS 17:31, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is nominated for deletion as I could find no evidence that the rank has ever in fact existed. During World War II, some British Generals were referred to as "Field marshals of the Indian Army" but were simply British Field Marshals in command of Indian troops. In addition, this is a one line article created by an anon user with no sources provided. - Husnock 17:32, 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 keep (but a less cumbersome title may be in order). -- BD2412 talk 05:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
50% nonsense, and when that's removed there's not much left. I don't see the point of the list. Tim Pope 18:09, 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 No consensus. -- Ryan Delaney talk 11:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity and non-encyclopedic Gorrister 19:01, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity Gorrister 19:03, 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 speedy. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity Gorrister 19:03, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Unsavable original research and amazingly POV. A few days ago, I deleted an obnoxious picture gallery that consisted of images of George W. Bush, Hitler, and the Holocaust (and I'm a solid Democrat, by the way). This article is the first of the 174 Google hits on "ontological guilt". Article is the sole contribution of User:Delita Figaro, who has not returned to defend her work. -- goethean ॐ 19:08, 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 No consensus. -- Ryan Delaney talk 11:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Simply being a character on Sesame Street does not confer notability. This character appears to be present in very few episodes and in limited capacity. Delete or Merge to Sesame Street. - Soltak 19:15, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
"Glamazon" is a fairly obvious portmanteau with lots of Google hits, but not when it's combined with what seem like keywords from this article, like "blankenship" or "talexia". Hoax? DS 19:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is an actual graphic novel, not a porn site. Please don't delete this. It means a lot to a lot of people to have this listed as an entry here. Thank you. (Unsigned vote by 24.117.199.139 ( talk · contribs))
Glamazon X is a comic book character familiar to gays in the South Mississippi area. Please don't delete this entry. (Unsigned vote by RWFanMS ( talk · contribs), second edit)
Okay, then, tell us more about her, and in what way she's relevant. This is what VfD is for. DS 01:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Bionic Bunny. The merging has already been done as a result of the VfD on that article, and the suggestion to merge to Arthur (cartoon) would seem redundant now that the author of that comment has voted to keep Bionic Bunny. - Splash 20:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Simply being a facet of Arthur does not confer notability, regardless of the prevalence of this item on the show. The show is notable, every character and plot device is not. Delete or Merge to
Arthur (cartoon). -
Soltak
19:22, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Simply being a character on Arthur does not confer notability, regardless of the prevalence of this character on the show. The show is notability, every character and plot device is not. Delete or Merge to
Arthur (cartoon). -
Soltak
19:20, 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 merge and redirect – Ryan Delaney talk 08:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Simply being a facet of Arthur does not confer notability, regardless of the prevalence of this item on the show. The show is notable, every character and plot device is not. Delete or Merge to Arthur (cartoon). - Soltak 19:21, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 16:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
neologism descriptive of the article creator. DS 19:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I suggest moving to Wiktionary. There were about 5500 Google hits, but it's a neologism for sure. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 20:07, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
WP:ISNOT a PHP manual. DS 19:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete or merge with another article on PHP. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 20:05, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Some bizarre conspiracy theory that lacks references ( Google , context, etc. Or maybe it's about a gaming clan. Dunc| ☺ 20:37, 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 copyvio. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
advertising, cut and paste from promotional text, obvious copyvio Sdedeo 20:51, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
But so far it has only 4 (yup a 96hr old website) not many more tomorrows here I think. -- Doc (?) 21:11, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable DJ, hoping his skills will expand. Official website is a MySpace page. the wub "?/!" 21:24, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This was put to VFD just a few weeks ago. However, it only received three votes, and I believe there was some confusion, so I'm nominating again (if anyone thinks this is inappropriate, please direct to my talk page). "Id entity" roto (Roto being a character in the story) receives just 20 Google hits. I understand it's been published, but being published doesn't necessarily mean it's notable enough. First VFD can be found below. ral 315 21:38, 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 keep. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 01:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article was speedy deleted as nonsense, but was undeleted after discussion at WP:VFU. This appears to be some sort of cartoon. I myself am unsure of whether this cartoon is notable so no vote. If kept the article will need some wikifikation/cleanup. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 18 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
As it stands this article probably could be speedied, but I'm leaving it open to vote for the benefit of the poster. I have nothing against this snake or an article about it. However, the article doesn't tell me anything I can't figure out simply by looking at the name of the snake. -
Soltak
21:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
Keep. 60 google hits are enough for me.-- Fenice 21:54, 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 -- Allen3 talk 16:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
ad page by anonymous user 69.104.40.172, whose only contribution is this article. Delete. Ken 21:43, 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 COPYVIO. Already in progress, and no offer yet of a new /Temp article. - Splash 00:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Patent advertisement. Furthermore, the articles's creator, 216.234.39.163 (contribs) has added Embanet's name to several other pages. While these other edits don't seem to be overt advertisements (with exception of Computer Based Training, which has also been VfD'd), I believe that any mention of Embanet should be removed from those articles as well. - D. Wu 21:41, 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 COPYVIO. Already in progress, and no offer yet of a new /Temp article. - Splash 00:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is patent advertisement, identical in text to Embanet (see above). - D. Wu 21:44, 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 keep. There is some small support for merge; that is not something on which this discussion need reach a conclusion. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 00:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Simply being a character on Sesame Street does not confer notability. This character appears to be present in very few episodes and in limited capacity. Delete or Merge to Sesame Street. - Soltak 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
There's a completely another meaning for Honker. The page was rewritten and if it needs a redirection, please feel free to add a tag. -- Yau 12:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 16:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Advertisement. Delete. Ken 22:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. Article was recreated soon after the previous deletion and has just now been noticed. Naconkantari e| t|| c| m 00:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This is essentially an advertisment for the corporation. The user who created the article is an employee [34]. While the company may not be insignificant, Wikipedia isn't designed to provide free ads. Additionally, this page was created not long after the previous deletion above! -- Scientizzle 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 12:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't make much sense to me. -- R.Koot 22:09, 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 -- Allen3 talk 12:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
nn addon for WoW. humble fool ® Deletion Reform 22:22, 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. Does not fulfil WP:MUSIC either.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:36, 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 No consensus. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wind consultant firm. NN humble fool ® Deletion Reform 22:43, 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 KEEP. - Splash 20:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research essay about the name of a town. Not notable or informative, terribly written, and doesn't need an article. Harro5 22:46, 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 speedy deleted (blanked by creator) -- cesarb 00:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The Reference Desk at WP:RD already exists, so having this page would be unnecessary. HappyCamper 23:02, 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Main character in non-notable webcomic. DS 23:12, 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 KEEP. But I am going to move it per Vegaswikian since the article uses the name s/he suggests. - Splash 20:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. No attempt is even made to assert notability. Article simply states the location of the radio station. - Soltak 23:20, 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
there's no way this could ever be NPOV, and the article certaintly starts that way, with its one member being PETA Sdedeo 23:23, 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 No consensus. – malathion talk 06:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Bias propaganda selectively citing reports of abuse by U.S. Marines. This information is covered in the page on Fallujah and so (1) does not need it's own entry, and (2) even if it did this shouldn't be it. As a person who spent a long time in Fallujah (not during the attack in question) I am willing to admit not all the acts by US soldiers in Iraq may be morally acceptable. However, I would argue most are and that this entry well over-exaggerates the bad behavior of US soldiers in Iraq. It was also my experience in Iraq that a large amount of the reports given to the media by Iraqis were themselves lies or exaggerations. Heck, I've even been to the hospital cited in this article.
There is a valid place for criticism of U.S. actions in Iraq, but this entry is just rampant nonsense. [Delete]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delee -- Allen3 talk 11:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. No relevant Google hits that I can find. Reminds me of the ole Rompin' Stompin' that we had in the early 1980s. Those, too, had less than a ten-year lifespan. The article states that the "T.T.C.C. now faces extinction". Should this article meet that same fate? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 23:42, 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Minor character in non-notable webcomic. Although the description "we can rebuild him! Make him faster, stronger, smarter -" "Actually, our budget's been cut. We can make him faster and stronger, but that's it" is funny, I'll admit. DS 23:44, 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
see Meca-Zonic. DS 23:47, 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 merge with Abrasive Waterjet Cutter (which is the target article for the redirect at water jet (machining), then redirect to water jet. Alright, I'll see what I can do. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Some sort of new user test, non-verifiable info EdwinHJ | Talk 23:47, 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
see Matt McCormic, Meca-Zonic et al. DS 23:49, 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 -- Allen3 talk 11:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity page, nonnotable band EdwinHJ | Talk 23:55, 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 SPEEDIED by Dpbsmith. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
No potential to become encyclopedic because the title intrinsically favors the point of view that soft drinks are addictive. No source citations of any kind given. Personal essay? And: help me here... wasn't something almost identical to this previously voted for deletion? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
.