This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
More Eyrecruft. See the VFDs for Truelove Eyre and Eyre Empire. Rick K 07:10, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep sources show that Jehu Eyre actually existed, as are provided on this site. See Truelove Eyre], which also provides resources. [[[Eyre Empire]]] is rubbish. This is the story of the real family as the existed in historical records.
Keep new sources not only show that Jehu Eyre existed, but that he was instrumental in the Revolution (the Washington website, second source listed). I am interested by this,as I see it as a more realistic portrayal of an actual family. I've been searching,and I found something listing Jehu's brother Samuel as a member of the Philadelphia Committee of Correspondence. I'll list tha
Keep EYRE, JEHU 1738-1781
Capt., Philadelphia "City Guard", Aug. 30, 1775; Capt. of Artillery, Philadelphia Brigade, Gen. John Cadwalader, June 5, 1777; Col., Philadelphia Artillery Battalion, Aug. 25, 1777; at Trenton, Princeton, Germantown, and Valley Forge; commanded the Forts at Mud Island and Billingsport, 1780; died in service.
EYRE, MANUEL 1736-1805
Member of the Committee of Correspondence of Philadelphia, 1775; Delegate to the Provincial Convention of PA, Jan. 23, 1775; Member of the PA Navy Board, 1777; Private, Capt. Jehu Eyre's Artillery Company, 1777; Capt. of a company of Artillery, First Brigade, Gen. John Cadwalader, 1777, Philadelphia Militia.
These both came from: http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/pa/1pa/military/revwar/sorrolla-g.txt
Keep With or without Clinton, this family has (based on the evidence) played a fairly large role in American history (with special regards to the Revolution) and is significant in their own right because of their connection to the Truelove Eyre legend. I have heard that Bill Clinton had a strong Revolutionary War ancestry, and this would seem to fit. However, if definitive proof cannot be found then the article should be modified so that Clinton's name is not included. Connection to an American president is too huge a claim to pass off without verification. Other than the Clinton thing, the rest of the article is fine. Great job finding resources!
Okay, I've got something about Bill Clinton: "Furthermore, he is related to every Scottish monarch to the current British royal family. Clinton's royal roots include several medieval monarchs and Simon de Montford, a statesman and soldier under King Henry III. Through de Montford, Clinton is related to EVERY ancient aristocratic family in Britain today." This comes from: http://asis.com/~stag/uspres.html It's not a lot, but it is a small thread that leads me to believe that the Clinton-Eyre connection is genuine. If Clinton is related to every aristocratic family (I capitalized EVERY in the quotations to emphasize that point) in Britain, then he has some connection with the Eyres. The quote also mentions, "medieval monarchs," which would ostensibly be the House of Wessex through which the Eyres claim descent. Obviously more specific information must be found, but this is a start.
Keep I respectfully disagree with that view. I think that the family as a unit (that is, all together) is far more significant than any of its members (Truelove Eyre notwithstanding) alone. For example, we have established that Jehu Eyre helped build boats and give money to the Revolution, and that his brother Manuel was a member of the Committee of Correspondence. Obviosuly, their work was highly influential, but neither one is particularly famous. Separate articles would be immediately debunked as, "non notable," and it's ,much easier to just include every significant Eyre on one page. The Bill Clinton thing sounds like it would be right, but I haven't been able to find anything that confirms it, so it should be taken out. I hope that someone else can locate something about him. It appears that Jehu Eyre had a lot of children beside this one daughter, perhaps it's through another child. Liz1848 Hi, same person again. I just went over to Truelove Eyre and was reading the Talk Page that debated whether or not the legend was genuine. I just wanted to add that the Truelove Eyre article was widely denounced by Wikipedians following the Eyre Empire garbage, but that evidence eventually proved the legend to be verifiable. It now appears as if the Truelove article is going to stay, namely because so many Wikipedians changed their votes. I hope that this article is given the same consideration. I have found that there are some people here who are a bit, "delete happy," i.e., they attack things just to attack. Come now. I thought that our goal here was to report the facts. This is history, and, HISTORY BACKED UP BY REFERENCED FACT. Liz1848
Delete. If you go back far enough, everyone is related to everybody...Is this genealogycruft? Lectonar 07:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Rick is right. If no one has any objections, I am going to edit the article so that the part about Bill Clinton is ommitted. I will postpone doing this to allow for any kind of debate on the issue, but I've got to say that the evidence just isn't there. Liz1848 has a point, too, though; the family as a whole is notable and historically confirmed, as Truelove Eyre and the talk surrounding it show. As the politicalgraves website shows, the Eyres have significant political connections. This family should be included on wikipedia.
Keep In the face of the overwhelming evidence (the profusion of websites detailing the family), I can reach no other conclusion but that the Eyres were a family of great importance, both politically and socially. Unless anyone can find a website stating, "all of these other websites are completely false, and here is the evidence of that," I find no reason that this article should not be kept. bit89medieval
It may be my first contribution, but that does not detract from the legitimacy of said contribution. To 208.22.177.10: you can set up a user account by going to the upper right hand corner of your computer and clicking, "Log In." It's pretty self-explanatory after that. By the way, there are ten websites referenced on this page alone about this supposedly insignificant family! If their influence was really that miniscule, why are so many people talking about them? There is no reason to create so many sites about a group of entirely unimportant people.
Delete. The fact that we are even discussing this is amazing to me. -- Woohookitty 08:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep for obvious reasons. This could be helpful to anyone who's ever had to do a history report on the American Revolution, or on influential American families. Perhaps this should be placed under "Important Families of the Revolution," or, "Important American Families," or even incorporated into, "American Revolution," something like that. The article is certainly noteworthy, though. I think that wikipedia would lose an asset if this article was removed (it's certainly a very interesting part of American history without the stink of uncertainty that accompanies legend), though it seems that some rather narrowminded people are bent on doing just that. Therefore, I would like to pose a question: if we absolutely cannot accept this entirely legitimate article, where should it go? Does anyone have know of any websites where this could be posted, or any other area of wikipedia where it could find a home? I remain steadfast in my opnion that this article SHOULD BE KEPT.
Keep The fact that we are even discussing this amazes me, too.
Strong Keep Besides referencing every other keep vote on this page, I draw my evidence from the listed websites dedicated to the Eyres. If any one family is notable, this one is it. They remind me of an eighteenth century version of the Kennedeys. joan53
Keep Definitely and without question. The petty arguments against this article remind me of the 24/7 nonsense. nanaszczebrzeszyn
Keep I've seen quite a few articles of blatant self-promotion ( 70 Foot Century), but this just isn't one of them. To be perfectly honest, it seems silly that this is being debated. What more could possibly be done to prove this family's significance? whoknew?
Vote For Rhobite to Get His Facts Straight whoa, there, cowboy. First of all, this is NOT my first and only edit. You'll want to check your records a bit more carefully before you, you know, make a fool of yourself be proclaiming, "Only one edit!" As I said, not so. And I would just chalk it up to a mechanical error, but your disrespect has me the teensiest bit riled. For you see, not only are you incorrect in your assertion about my edits, you have also impugned my integrity by suggesting that I am a, "sock puppet," which, I can assure you, I am not. I take history quite seriously and do not appreciate an insinuation that I would somehow try to twist it. And, given your incompetence in reporting my number of edits, are we sure that all of these accounts were created on the same day, as you've said, or are you wrong about that, too? nanaszczebrzeszyn
Keep Sock puppetry aside (I'm sure that nanaszcz... is really offended), this article seems to have historical merits. There are about ten or eleven websites listed here. In spite of my annoyance with these vandals, I simply can't find any real reason to delete this article. Sorry.
Keep the family is more than notable. SusanaeIII
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. –
AB
CD 19:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Advert for a future business. SWAdair | Talk 07:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(comment by 65.41.248.221)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --
Carnildo 04:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged -
SimonP 14:58, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Being the younger sister of a first lady is nice and all, but is that really sufficient notability to make for an encyclopedia article? -- Carnildo 07:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged somewhere -
SimonP 15:00, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
The brother-in-law of a President. Not notable. Rick K 07:59, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged somewhere -
SimonP 14:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Another non-notable Presidential brother-in-law. Rick K 08:05, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 15:01, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
A band whose first album isn't due out until late this year. They haven't had a chance to become well-known yet. Delete. Joyous 08:23, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - keep or merge -
SimonP 15:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Is being the mother of a First Lady sufficient notability to make for an encyclopedia article? -- Carnildo 08:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 15:05, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
GRider put a vfd header on this on February 15 but apparently never followed up. My personal vote is Keep. Lee Radziwill is notable in her own right. Rick K 08:26, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - reidrected -
SimonP 15:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
I believe this page to be a hoax- this is a rather unusual name for a compound more normally known as orthosilicic acid. Most of the information in this 2003 stub is either wrong or overly simplistic. I have never seen this name in any chemical catalogue, and books such as the ref. below refer to it as orthosilicic acid. It would be impossible to "pass SiO2 over water vapour" as the boiling point of SiO2 is much higher than the 800 C mentioned. Also, the ref mentioned below implies that complex mixtures of silicic acids are formed, not just one. I have created a stub for silicic acid to compensate for the loss of this rather dubious page. I am also proposing deletion for related nonsense on Silicate dihydroxide and Silicate monohydroxide.
Reference: N. N. Greenwood, A. Earnshaw, Chemistry of the Elements, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 1997.
Walkerma 08:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged and redirected -
SimonP 22:00, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
The grandfather of a fictional character. -- Carnildo 08:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to
patronymic. —
Korath (
Talk) 01:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Dicdef substub - has existed sporadically since September 2004 with no meaningful expansion. Attempts to redirect to related article patronymic have been opposed by author. Wikipedia is not a dictionary: Wiktionary and redirect to patronymic. -- Cyrius| ✎ 08:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 15:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Even more than with silicon hydroxide described above, I believe this page (same author) to be a hoax. The author of this 2003 two line stub would have us believe that we can generate oxygen by mixing sand and water, while generating a trivalent silicon atom. This violates the rules learned by my students in freshman chemistry!
Walkerma 08:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 15:17, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Also see silicon hydroxide and silicate monohydroxide. Although at least this compound is a valid compound, the name is more usually metasilicic acid. I wrote a new stub, silicic acid to help cover this material. This 2003 three-line stub uses an invalid name and is incredibly simplistic.
See N. N. Greenwood, A. Earnshaw, Chemistry of the Elements, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 1997.
Walkerma 09:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:24, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be a non-notable movement. A google test on
turned up nothing. I am voting delete. Sjakkalle 09:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:24, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This looks like an advert for a small personal company to me. Should it be deleted? Kodang 10:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:26, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Article gives meaning of uncommon name. Wikipedia is not a gyneology site, and I don't think this page can be expanded. Either merge into the more common name; like Veronica or Veronique or delete. Mgm| (talk) 10:52, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged -
SimonP 15:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
A piece of historical trivia. Orphaned article under a nonsense name, no evidence of notability. Until/unless an article about
Janos Jeszenszky is created, its inclusion in an encyclopedia makes no sense. Delete or move to author's talk page. -
Mike Rosoft 10:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable messageboard spammer/vandal. Only ~50 Google hits. Delete as webcruft. jni 11:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity page, spotted in the list of deadend pages. Davelong 13:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged and redirected -
SimonP 16:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Content: disfiguration- an alteration in the original appearance of an object or person
Delete. Dicdef, and I wouldn't consider it the start of an article. Nothing has been or needs to be merged with the existing wiktionary definition
Wiktionary:disfiguration.
(Note: CSD is full of dicdefs that already exist in wiktionary, and it seems like they will be hanging around for a while if they don't get Vfd'd). Kappa
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 16:32, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This page has been around for almost a year and in the Wiktionary queue for four months. In all that time it has not grown into an encyclopaedia article (as per the {{move to Wiktionary}} notice) clearly demonstrating the improbability of this expanding into an article. Wiktionary already has an entirely separate Wiktionary:counsel, so transwikification is uncessary. 81.138.100.115 13:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus -
SimonP 16:34, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This page is beyond repair on NPOV and is a copyright violation of http://www.historicomaha.com/riot.htm Tjc 13:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:38, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
And which image is a copyright violation? All have been licensed from their original sources and are noted in the text. Other images are from Eddie Schneider himself and were his publicity photos and are also marked with the appropriate copyright notices. So please be specific and tell me which ones are considered violations. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is an image archive. Most of the images come from the 1930s and are therefore probably covered by copyright (the uploader claims them to be public domain but provides no evidence).
Hello! The copyright for Gone With the Wind (1939) expired in 1989. Images from the 1930's are NOT covered by copyright. The only issue to debate is whether these photos are useful or not.
An image gallery is not sufficently educational for a fair use claim. Therefore most of these images should be removed as copyright violations. The others should be transfered to commons, and this page deleted
—
Zeimusu |
Talk 14:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:37, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism; 12 Google hits for "romantic forgery". Android79 14:35, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged -
SimonP 16:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, or failing that, Merge into Dumb & Dumber. Article refers to the Shaggin' Wagon from the movie, which is not notable enough to have its own article. Android79 14:38, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:41, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. Delete or userfy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:44, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
According to Google, if The Children's Echelon is anything, it would seem to be an unpublished story by JD Salinger, which I doubt would be a French black market commodity. Also no hits for the supposed medium "Franz Delmonait." This might just be a notable French book that doesn't Google, but without any evidence, I say Delete. Philthecow 14:49, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 01:10, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
A casino that's under construction. Delete because: advertising, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, Wikipedia is not a directory, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Dpbsmith (talk) 15:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:43, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
As the notice says. (Note that the article appears to have been moved directly into the main Wiktionary namespace at Wiktionary:Anatistical, rather than into Wiktionary:Transwiki:Anatistical as it should have been.) Uncle G 15:58, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 16:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This is a pretty spammy page, but it does make claims for notability, so I'm converting it from a speedy candidate in case anyone wants to fix it. Kappa 16:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- http://www.katun.com/resourcecenter/bli.html - http://www.ricoh-usa.com/about/press/releases.asp?id=190 - http://www.okidata.com/mkt/html/PR/2002-06-04_16_13_39.html
As to whether we are an important company, I'll leave that up to others to decide... Benzamin 18 March 2005
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:48, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this ad. Created by User:62.154.235.58 who later logged in as User:KUKA to upload some images. VxWin is sold by a company called Kuka Controls. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/CeWin. Rhobite 16:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:47, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this ad. Created by User:62.154.235.58 who later logged in as User:KUKA to upload some images. CeWin is sold by a company called Kuka Controls. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/VxWin. Rhobite 16:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:48, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Probable vanity, not notable. — Caesura 16:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 01:11, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Converting from speedy candidate because my feeling is that this is a good-faith substub about a notable company ( 123,000 hits) . Kappa 16:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:49, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary independently grew an article, from a stub, in less than a day, better than what Wikipedia had grown in four months. This is, of course, an adjective article title (not a noun as per Wikipedia naming conventions) so redlinks to it should disappear too. Uncle G 16:25, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary has an independently grown entry. This entry hasn't grown beyond a dictionary entry for whine (and a dictionary entry for whinge — one that is false, moreover) in 8 months. Uncle G 16:32, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirect -
SimonP 16:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Poorly researched essay which devolves into POV rant by the end (see the final section, "Blacks Domination). Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
As the notice says. Uncle G 16:55, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged -
SimonP 16:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
How is encyclopedic notability being established in this article? -- GRider\ talk 16:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity band listing. No AMG listing; "incredible eagle" + "tempe" gets 0 google hits. Postdlf 17:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Unwikified text dump, which I don't find the title or the content (comparison between Home Video to DVD) encyclopedic. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 01:15, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary had a better article than this even at the time that this article was originally written. The only growth that this article saw in 10 months was some etymological rubbish about the word "
polio".
Uncle G 17:07, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Whilst this article about a word and not a thing/person/concept sat languishing in the Wiktionary queue, Wiktionary went and grew a better Wiktionary:infra article all by itself. Uncle G 17:13, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be vanity. I always suspect vanity when the first sentence is "X is a famous Y" and the second sentence, instead of describing X's accomplishments in the field of Y, describes what X is now studying at university. Delete unless actual notability is established (and if the Big Pink Yorkshire festival proves to be notable, it doesn't automatically make him so). -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 01:16, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Are the authors of PERL modules inherently noteworthy? If not, how is encyclopedic notability being illustrated within this article? No vote. -- GRider\ talk 17:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The result was delete, as it should've been before. This is clearly an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. This is the third time this article has been created, and it should be deleted for the same reason it was the other two times. Marnanel 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This should be "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear (2)" or something like that and not the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear/2 other one. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Dear WPdian editors, or Orwellian policeman-- just kidding!!!
However, I do think that it certainly requires Disambiguation. Also, the fact--the reality--is that WP have made Wikipedia into a dictionary--it is a dictionary de facto, if not de jure. I'm fully aware that the WP policy is that WP is an Encyclopedia, or should I say Encyclopaedia? Yours truly Ludvikus 14:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 16:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
The Wiktionary article preceded the Wikipedia article by 5 months. And in the 6 months that this article has been in Wikipedia so far, in various forms, it has never expanded to be more than a dictionary entry about a word. Uncle G 17:43, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:00, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this subtrivial rubbish. 4 google hits. "Emo Hobo" and "Emo Hobos" get 3 and 6 respectively. Djbrianuk 17:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 17:02, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A page about a child who died within a day of birth, even if she was a member of a royal family, has no potential to become encyclopedic. RussBlau 17:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, you make a valid point; some articles about infants can be informative and encyclopedic. It's just that this one isn't. It doesn't contain anything remotely comparable to the Kennedy article or the one on her sister, Princess Elizabeth of Clarence. Is there any reason to think that there will ever be anything more to say about this poor child than what appears on this page? RussBlau 22:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:03, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
There is no scope for an encyclopaedia article here, and the title is in the wrong language for a redirect to be worthwhile. Uncle G 18:16, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
Redirect? I don't know, maybe put it in a wiktionary. Lilyana
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --
Carnildo 04:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Neologism, user mentions it in his weblog here. Delete. Joyous 18:18, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 17:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Dictionary definition (which someone more knowledgeable than I should check for accuracy). RussBlau 18:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. —
Korath (
Talk) 01:18, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's nothing on this page that isn't already on Tsunami, and there's nothing on this page specific to Asia. RussBlau 18:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
A common mistake is to think that "if it is more than 1 line long, it isn't a dictionary entry". This article very clearly demonstrates the error in that thinking (to those who haven't been to Wiktionary lately and so haven't noticed that many of the entries are a lot more than 1 line long ☺). Wiktionary's article about the word had existed for 15 months at the point that this article was created. Also note that the identical text was added to Wiktionary:browbeat 2 minutes after this article was created. So somehow I doubt that it was by a different editor, and GFDL considerations don't apply. Uncle G 18:53, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
In the 8 months of its existence, this article about the word and not the concept has not grown at all. In the meantime, Wiktionary, all by itself, grew a full Wiktionary:neophyte entry. Uncle G 19:48, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:11, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary had had shitload for four months before this article was created. 6 months later, this article has seen zero expansion, and is still a dictionary article about the word, rather than an encyclopaedia article about the concept, indicating that there's probably nothing to say about the concept. Uncle G 19:55, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:11, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
As the notice says. After a year of sitting here, half of that with a notice affixed encouraging the creation of an encyclopaedia article, this is still a dictionary entry describing the word. Uncle G 20:23, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus -
SimonP 17:12, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Not actually a dictionary entry, but a request for a dictionary entry (submitted by the same author to both Wikipedia and Wiktionary at the same time). Uncle G 20:40, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
The dictionary entry for the name had been at Wiktionary:Andreas for a month before the creation of this article. No-one of note commonly referred to solely by their given name "Andreas" springs to mind for a biographical article. Uncle G 20:54, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
No clear need or potential for an article; wiktionary already has a definition Wiktionary:chill pill which covers it. Kappa 20:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable, hardly verifiable article about a small faction within Jehovas Witnesses. Zero Google hits for the lemma. One of the external links given (on GeoCities) has already stopped working. -- Pjacobi 21:02, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:19, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this organisation is sufficiently notable to mention in Wikipedia. In particular, see Talk:Church of Spiritual Humanism, which points out they seem to be more of a commercial enterprise than a religion. -- SamuelKatinsky 23:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:19, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Do we really, really need this? DJ Clayworth 23:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:20, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Seems nonsensical. Gets 30 Google hits, most of which relate to a graphics company by this name. Separating the words only jacks it up to 140 Google hits, mostly relating to an icon you might find on your desktop. I say delete, but maybe someone else knows something I don't. -- BD2412 23:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 17:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Definition of slang term. Recommended transwiki to wiki-dictionary. jdb ❋ ( talk) 23:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If this term is actually used at all, it is probably a very limited local useage. Edeans 02:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. A redirect to
New Zealand was subsequently created. —
Korath (
Talk) 01:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Unnecessary, profane, speedy deletion
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
More Eyrecruft. See the VFDs for Truelove Eyre and Eyre Empire. Rick K 07:10, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep sources show that Jehu Eyre actually existed, as are provided on this site. See Truelove Eyre], which also provides resources. [[[Eyre Empire]]] is rubbish. This is the story of the real family as the existed in historical records.
Keep new sources not only show that Jehu Eyre existed, but that he was instrumental in the Revolution (the Washington website, second source listed). I am interested by this,as I see it as a more realistic portrayal of an actual family. I've been searching,and I found something listing Jehu's brother Samuel as a member of the Philadelphia Committee of Correspondence. I'll list tha
Keep EYRE, JEHU 1738-1781
Capt., Philadelphia "City Guard", Aug. 30, 1775; Capt. of Artillery, Philadelphia Brigade, Gen. John Cadwalader, June 5, 1777; Col., Philadelphia Artillery Battalion, Aug. 25, 1777; at Trenton, Princeton, Germantown, and Valley Forge; commanded the Forts at Mud Island and Billingsport, 1780; died in service.
EYRE, MANUEL 1736-1805
Member of the Committee of Correspondence of Philadelphia, 1775; Delegate to the Provincial Convention of PA, Jan. 23, 1775; Member of the PA Navy Board, 1777; Private, Capt. Jehu Eyre's Artillery Company, 1777; Capt. of a company of Artillery, First Brigade, Gen. John Cadwalader, 1777, Philadelphia Militia.
These both came from: http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/pa/1pa/military/revwar/sorrolla-g.txt
Keep With or without Clinton, this family has (based on the evidence) played a fairly large role in American history (with special regards to the Revolution) and is significant in their own right because of their connection to the Truelove Eyre legend. I have heard that Bill Clinton had a strong Revolutionary War ancestry, and this would seem to fit. However, if definitive proof cannot be found then the article should be modified so that Clinton's name is not included. Connection to an American president is too huge a claim to pass off without verification. Other than the Clinton thing, the rest of the article is fine. Great job finding resources!
Okay, I've got something about Bill Clinton: "Furthermore, he is related to every Scottish monarch to the current British royal family. Clinton's royal roots include several medieval monarchs and Simon de Montford, a statesman and soldier under King Henry III. Through de Montford, Clinton is related to EVERY ancient aristocratic family in Britain today." This comes from: http://asis.com/~stag/uspres.html It's not a lot, but it is a small thread that leads me to believe that the Clinton-Eyre connection is genuine. If Clinton is related to every aristocratic family (I capitalized EVERY in the quotations to emphasize that point) in Britain, then he has some connection with the Eyres. The quote also mentions, "medieval monarchs," which would ostensibly be the House of Wessex through which the Eyres claim descent. Obviously more specific information must be found, but this is a start.
Keep I respectfully disagree with that view. I think that the family as a unit (that is, all together) is far more significant than any of its members (Truelove Eyre notwithstanding) alone. For example, we have established that Jehu Eyre helped build boats and give money to the Revolution, and that his brother Manuel was a member of the Committee of Correspondence. Obviosuly, their work was highly influential, but neither one is particularly famous. Separate articles would be immediately debunked as, "non notable," and it's ,much easier to just include every significant Eyre on one page. The Bill Clinton thing sounds like it would be right, but I haven't been able to find anything that confirms it, so it should be taken out. I hope that someone else can locate something about him. It appears that Jehu Eyre had a lot of children beside this one daughter, perhaps it's through another child. Liz1848 Hi, same person again. I just went over to Truelove Eyre and was reading the Talk Page that debated whether or not the legend was genuine. I just wanted to add that the Truelove Eyre article was widely denounced by Wikipedians following the Eyre Empire garbage, but that evidence eventually proved the legend to be verifiable. It now appears as if the Truelove article is going to stay, namely because so many Wikipedians changed their votes. I hope that this article is given the same consideration. I have found that there are some people here who are a bit, "delete happy," i.e., they attack things just to attack. Come now. I thought that our goal here was to report the facts. This is history, and, HISTORY BACKED UP BY REFERENCED FACT. Liz1848
Delete. If you go back far enough, everyone is related to everybody...Is this genealogycruft? Lectonar 07:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep Rick is right. If no one has any objections, I am going to edit the article so that the part about Bill Clinton is ommitted. I will postpone doing this to allow for any kind of debate on the issue, but I've got to say that the evidence just isn't there. Liz1848 has a point, too, though; the family as a whole is notable and historically confirmed, as Truelove Eyre and the talk surrounding it show. As the politicalgraves website shows, the Eyres have significant political connections. This family should be included on wikipedia.
Keep In the face of the overwhelming evidence (the profusion of websites detailing the family), I can reach no other conclusion but that the Eyres were a family of great importance, both politically and socially. Unless anyone can find a website stating, "all of these other websites are completely false, and here is the evidence of that," I find no reason that this article should not be kept. bit89medieval
It may be my first contribution, but that does not detract from the legitimacy of said contribution. To 208.22.177.10: you can set up a user account by going to the upper right hand corner of your computer and clicking, "Log In." It's pretty self-explanatory after that. By the way, there are ten websites referenced on this page alone about this supposedly insignificant family! If their influence was really that miniscule, why are so many people talking about them? There is no reason to create so many sites about a group of entirely unimportant people.
Delete. The fact that we are even discussing this is amazing to me. -- Woohookitty 08:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep for obvious reasons. This could be helpful to anyone who's ever had to do a history report on the American Revolution, or on influential American families. Perhaps this should be placed under "Important Families of the Revolution," or, "Important American Families," or even incorporated into, "American Revolution," something like that. The article is certainly noteworthy, though. I think that wikipedia would lose an asset if this article was removed (it's certainly a very interesting part of American history without the stink of uncertainty that accompanies legend), though it seems that some rather narrowminded people are bent on doing just that. Therefore, I would like to pose a question: if we absolutely cannot accept this entirely legitimate article, where should it go? Does anyone have know of any websites where this could be posted, or any other area of wikipedia where it could find a home? I remain steadfast in my opnion that this article SHOULD BE KEPT.
Keep The fact that we are even discussing this amazes me, too.
Strong Keep Besides referencing every other keep vote on this page, I draw my evidence from the listed websites dedicated to the Eyres. If any one family is notable, this one is it. They remind me of an eighteenth century version of the Kennedeys. joan53
Keep Definitely and without question. The petty arguments against this article remind me of the 24/7 nonsense. nanaszczebrzeszyn
Keep I've seen quite a few articles of blatant self-promotion ( 70 Foot Century), but this just isn't one of them. To be perfectly honest, it seems silly that this is being debated. What more could possibly be done to prove this family's significance? whoknew?
Vote For Rhobite to Get His Facts Straight whoa, there, cowboy. First of all, this is NOT my first and only edit. You'll want to check your records a bit more carefully before you, you know, make a fool of yourself be proclaiming, "Only one edit!" As I said, not so. And I would just chalk it up to a mechanical error, but your disrespect has me the teensiest bit riled. For you see, not only are you incorrect in your assertion about my edits, you have also impugned my integrity by suggesting that I am a, "sock puppet," which, I can assure you, I am not. I take history quite seriously and do not appreciate an insinuation that I would somehow try to twist it. And, given your incompetence in reporting my number of edits, are we sure that all of these accounts were created on the same day, as you've said, or are you wrong about that, too? nanaszczebrzeszyn
Keep Sock puppetry aside (I'm sure that nanaszcz... is really offended), this article seems to have historical merits. There are about ten or eleven websites listed here. In spite of my annoyance with these vandals, I simply can't find any real reason to delete this article. Sorry.
Keep the family is more than notable. SusanaeIII
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. –
AB
CD 19:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Advert for a future business. SWAdair | Talk 07:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(comment by 65.41.248.221)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --
Carnildo 04:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged -
SimonP 14:58, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Being the younger sister of a first lady is nice and all, but is that really sufficient notability to make for an encyclopedia article? -- Carnildo 07:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged somewhere -
SimonP 15:00, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
The brother-in-law of a President. Not notable. Rick K 07:59, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged somewhere -
SimonP 14:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Another non-notable Presidential brother-in-law. Rick K 08:05, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 15:01, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
A band whose first album isn't due out until late this year. They haven't had a chance to become well-known yet. Delete. Joyous 08:23, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - keep or merge -
SimonP 15:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Is being the mother of a First Lady sufficient notability to make for an encyclopedia article? -- Carnildo 08:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 15:05, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
GRider put a vfd header on this on February 15 but apparently never followed up. My personal vote is Keep. Lee Radziwill is notable in her own right. Rick K 08:26, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - reidrected -
SimonP 15:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
I believe this page to be a hoax- this is a rather unusual name for a compound more normally known as orthosilicic acid. Most of the information in this 2003 stub is either wrong or overly simplistic. I have never seen this name in any chemical catalogue, and books such as the ref. below refer to it as orthosilicic acid. It would be impossible to "pass SiO2 over water vapour" as the boiling point of SiO2 is much higher than the 800 C mentioned. Also, the ref mentioned below implies that complex mixtures of silicic acids are formed, not just one. I have created a stub for silicic acid to compensate for the loss of this rather dubious page. I am also proposing deletion for related nonsense on Silicate dihydroxide and Silicate monohydroxide.
Reference: N. N. Greenwood, A. Earnshaw, Chemistry of the Elements, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 1997.
Walkerma 08:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged and redirected -
SimonP 22:00, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
The grandfather of a fictional character. -- Carnildo 08:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to
patronymic. —
Korath (
Talk) 01:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Dicdef substub - has existed sporadically since September 2004 with no meaningful expansion. Attempts to redirect to related article patronymic have been opposed by author. Wikipedia is not a dictionary: Wiktionary and redirect to patronymic. -- Cyrius| ✎ 08:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 15:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Even more than with silicon hydroxide described above, I believe this page (same author) to be a hoax. The author of this 2003 two line stub would have us believe that we can generate oxygen by mixing sand and water, while generating a trivalent silicon atom. This violates the rules learned by my students in freshman chemistry!
Walkerma 08:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 15:17, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Also see silicon hydroxide and silicate monohydroxide. Although at least this compound is a valid compound, the name is more usually metasilicic acid. I wrote a new stub, silicic acid to help cover this material. This 2003 three-line stub uses an invalid name and is incredibly simplistic.
See N. N. Greenwood, A. Earnshaw, Chemistry of the Elements, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 1997.
Walkerma 09:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:24, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be a non-notable movement. A google test on
turned up nothing. I am voting delete. Sjakkalle 09:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:24, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This looks like an advert for a small personal company to me. Should it be deleted? Kodang 10:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:26, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Article gives meaning of uncommon name. Wikipedia is not a gyneology site, and I don't think this page can be expanded. Either merge into the more common name; like Veronica or Veronique or delete. Mgm| (talk) 10:52, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged -
SimonP 15:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
A piece of historical trivia. Orphaned article under a nonsense name, no evidence of notability. Until/unless an article about
Janos Jeszenszky is created, its inclusion in an encyclopedia makes no sense. Delete or move to author's talk page. -
Mike Rosoft 10:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable messageboard spammer/vandal. Only ~50 Google hits. Delete as webcruft. jni 11:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity page, spotted in the list of deadend pages. Davelong 13:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - merged and redirected -
SimonP 16:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Content: disfiguration- an alteration in the original appearance of an object or person
Delete. Dicdef, and I wouldn't consider it the start of an article. Nothing has been or needs to be merged with the existing wiktionary definition
Wiktionary:disfiguration.
(Note: CSD is full of dicdefs that already exist in wiktionary, and it seems like they will be hanging around for a while if they don't get Vfd'd). Kappa
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 16:32, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This page has been around for almost a year and in the Wiktionary queue for four months. In all that time it has not grown into an encyclopaedia article (as per the {{move to Wiktionary}} notice) clearly demonstrating the improbability of this expanding into an article. Wiktionary already has an entirely separate Wiktionary:counsel, so transwikification is uncessary. 81.138.100.115 13:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus -
SimonP 16:34, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This page is beyond repair on NPOV and is a copyright violation of http://www.historicomaha.com/riot.htm Tjc 13:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:38, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
And which image is a copyright violation? All have been licensed from their original sources and are noted in the text. Other images are from Eddie Schneider himself and were his publicity photos and are also marked with the appropriate copyright notices. So please be specific and tell me which ones are considered violations. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is an image archive. Most of the images come from the 1930s and are therefore probably covered by copyright (the uploader claims them to be public domain but provides no evidence).
Hello! The copyright for Gone With the Wind (1939) expired in 1989. Images from the 1930's are NOT covered by copyright. The only issue to debate is whether these photos are useful or not.
An image gallery is not sufficently educational for a fair use claim. Therefore most of these images should be removed as copyright violations. The others should be transfered to commons, and this page deleted
—
Zeimusu |
Talk 14:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:37, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism; 12 Google hits for "romantic forgery". Android79 14:35, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged -
SimonP 16:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, or failing that, Merge into Dumb & Dumber. Article refers to the Shaggin' Wagon from the movie, which is not notable enough to have its own article. Android79 14:38, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:41, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable. Delete or userfy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:44, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
According to Google, if The Children's Echelon is anything, it would seem to be an unpublished story by JD Salinger, which I doubt would be a French black market commodity. Also no hits for the supposed medium "Franz Delmonait." This might just be a notable French book that doesn't Google, but without any evidence, I say Delete. Philthecow 14:49, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 01:10, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
A casino that's under construction. Delete because: advertising, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, Wikipedia is not a directory, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Dpbsmith (talk) 15:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:43, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
As the notice says. (Note that the article appears to have been moved directly into the main Wiktionary namespace at Wiktionary:Anatistical, rather than into Wiktionary:Transwiki:Anatistical as it should have been.) Uncle G 15:58, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 16:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This is a pretty spammy page, but it does make claims for notability, so I'm converting it from a speedy candidate in case anyone wants to fix it. Kappa 16:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- http://www.katun.com/resourcecenter/bli.html - http://www.ricoh-usa.com/about/press/releases.asp?id=190 - http://www.okidata.com/mkt/html/PR/2002-06-04_16_13_39.html
As to whether we are an important company, I'll leave that up to others to decide... Benzamin 18 March 2005
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:48, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this ad. Created by User:62.154.235.58 who later logged in as User:KUKA to upload some images. VxWin is sold by a company called Kuka Controls. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/CeWin. Rhobite 16:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:47, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this ad. Created by User:62.154.235.58 who later logged in as User:KUKA to upload some images. CeWin is sold by a company called Kuka Controls. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/VxWin. Rhobite 16:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:48, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Probable vanity, not notable. — Caesura 16:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 01:11, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Converting from speedy candidate because my feeling is that this is a good-faith substub about a notable company ( 123,000 hits) . Kappa 16:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:49, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary independently grew an article, from a stub, in less than a day, better than what Wikipedia had grown in four months. This is, of course, an adjective article title (not a noun as per Wikipedia naming conventions) so redlinks to it should disappear too. Uncle G 16:25, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary has an independently grown entry. This entry hasn't grown beyond a dictionary entry for whine (and a dictionary entry for whinge — one that is false, moreover) in 8 months. Uncle G 16:32, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirect -
SimonP 16:50, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Poorly researched essay which devolves into POV rant by the end (see the final section, "Blacks Domination). Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
As the notice says. Uncle G 16:55, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged -
SimonP 16:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
How is encyclopedic notability being established in this article? -- GRider\ talk 16:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity band listing. No AMG listing; "incredible eagle" + "tempe" gets 0 google hits. Postdlf 17:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Unwikified text dump, which I don't find the title or the content (comparison between Home Video to DVD) encyclopedic. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 01:15, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary had a better article than this even at the time that this article was originally written. The only growth that this article saw in 10 months was some etymological rubbish about the word "
polio".
Uncle G 17:07, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Whilst this article about a word and not a thing/person/concept sat languishing in the Wiktionary queue, Wiktionary went and grew a better Wiktionary:infra article all by itself. Uncle G 17:13, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 16:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be vanity. I always suspect vanity when the first sentence is "X is a famous Y" and the second sentence, instead of describing X's accomplishments in the field of Y, describes what X is now studying at university. Delete unless actual notability is established (and if the Big Pink Yorkshire festival proves to be notable, it doesn't automatically make him so). -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —
Korath (
Talk) 01:16, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Are the authors of PERL modules inherently noteworthy? If not, how is encyclopedic notability being illustrated within this article? No vote. -- GRider\ talk 17:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The result was delete, as it should've been before. This is clearly an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Dicdef. This is the third time this article has been created, and it should be deleted for the same reason it was the other two times. Marnanel 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This should be "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear (2)" or something like that and not the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear/2 other one. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Dear WPdian editors, or Orwellian policeman-- just kidding!!!
However, I do think that it certainly requires Disambiguation. Also, the fact--the reality--is that WP have made Wikipedia into a dictionary--it is a dictionary de facto, if not de jure. I'm fully aware that the WP policy is that WP is an Encyclopedia, or should I say Encyclopaedia? Yours truly Ludvikus 14:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 16:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
The Wiktionary article preceded the Wikipedia article by 5 months. And in the 6 months that this article has been in Wikipedia so far, in various forms, it has never expanded to be more than a dictionary entry about a word. Uncle G 17:43, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:00, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this subtrivial rubbish. 4 google hits. "Emo Hobo" and "Emo Hobos" get 3 and 6 respectively. Djbrianuk 17:52, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 17:02, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A page about a child who died within a day of birth, even if she was a member of a royal family, has no potential to become encyclopedic. RussBlau 17:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, you make a valid point; some articles about infants can be informative and encyclopedic. It's just that this one isn't. It doesn't contain anything remotely comparable to the Kennedy article or the one on her sister, Princess Elizabeth of Clarence. Is there any reason to think that there will ever be anything more to say about this poor child than what appears on this page? RussBlau 22:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:03, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
There is no scope for an encyclopaedia article here, and the title is in the wrong language for a redirect to be worthwhile. Uncle G 18:16, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
Redirect? I don't know, maybe put it in a wiktionary. Lilyana
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --
Carnildo 04:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Neologism, user mentions it in his weblog here. Delete. Joyous 18:18, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 17:04, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Dictionary definition (which someone more knowledgeable than I should check for accuracy). RussBlau 18:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. —
Korath (
Talk) 01:18, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's nothing on this page that isn't already on Tsunami, and there's nothing on this page specific to Asia. RussBlau 18:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
A common mistake is to think that "if it is more than 1 line long, it isn't a dictionary entry". This article very clearly demonstrates the error in that thinking (to those who haven't been to Wiktionary lately and so haven't noticed that many of the entries are a lot more than 1 line long ☺). Wiktionary's article about the word had existed for 15 months at the point that this article was created. Also note that the identical text was added to Wiktionary:browbeat 2 minutes after this article was created. So somehow I doubt that it was by a different editor, and GFDL considerations don't apply. Uncle G 18:53, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
In the 8 months of its existence, this article about the word and not the concept has not grown at all. In the meantime, Wiktionary, all by itself, grew a full Wiktionary:neophyte entry. Uncle G 19:48, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:11, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary had had shitload for four months before this article was created. 6 months later, this article has seen zero expansion, and is still a dictionary article about the word, rather than an encyclopaedia article about the concept, indicating that there's probably nothing to say about the concept. Uncle G 19:55, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:11, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
As the notice says. After a year of sitting here, half of that with a notice affixed encouraging the creation of an encyclopaedia article, this is still a dictionary entry describing the word. Uncle G 20:23, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus -
SimonP 17:12, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Not actually a dictionary entry, but a request for a dictionary entry (submitted by the same author to both Wikipedia and Wiktionary at the same time). Uncle G 20:40, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
The dictionary entry for the name had been at Wiktionary:Andreas for a month before the creation of this article. No-one of note commonly referred to solely by their given name "Andreas" springs to mind for a biographical article. Uncle G 20:54, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
No clear need or potential for an article; wiktionary already has a definition Wiktionary:chill pill which covers it. Kappa 20:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable, hardly verifiable article about a small faction within Jehovas Witnesses. Zero Google hits for the lemma. One of the external links given (on GeoCities) has already stopped working. -- Pjacobi 21:02, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:19, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this organisation is sufficiently notable to mention in Wikipedia. In particular, see Talk:Church of Spiritual Humanism, which points out they seem to be more of a commercial enterprise than a religion. -- SamuelKatinsky 23:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:19, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Do we really, really need this? DJ Clayworth 23:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 17:20, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Seems nonsensical. Gets 30 Google hits, most of which relate to a graphics company by this name. Separating the words only jacks it up to 140 Google hits, mostly relating to an icon you might find on your desktop. I say delete, but maybe someone else knows something I don't. -- BD2412 23:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 17:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Definition of slang term. Recommended transwiki to wiki-dictionary. jdb ❋ ( talk) 23:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If this term is actually used at all, it is probably a very limited local useage. Edeans 02:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. A redirect to
New Zealand was subsequently created. —
Korath (
Talk) 01:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Unnecessary, profane, speedy deletion
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.