Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 16: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
add JD Lascia
ComCat (talk | contribs)
735 edits
No edit summary
Line 36: Line 36:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitworth Park}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitworth Park}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Caroline Faber}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Caroline Faber}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason_Kottke}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Kottke (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McMartin preschool}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McMartin preschool}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.D._Lasica}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.D._Lasica}}

Revision as of 02:35, 16 November 2005

< November 15 >

Purge server cache

November 16

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncompromisimg

Dicdef. Already in Wiktionary. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poker blog

A poker blog is a blog about poker, so we need a whole article on it? Also, this violates wikipedias policy of no original research. Skrewler 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Speedied and protected as blatant copyvio by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STUT(Southern Taiwan University of Technology)

Probably copyvio. Just the tip of an horrible iceberg: Southern Taiwan University of Technology (STUT) and College of Digital Design have been deleted and protected. But Lugee and 59.113.17.202 are reposting them and other STUT stuff under different titles. Someone please sort out this mess. -- RHaworth 00:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and remove from AFD. There is no dispute regarding the notability of a university, this is not the appropriate forum to list copyright violations. Silensor 00:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has been speedied as blatant copyvio by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. RHaworth, if you see any more of these, and can verify that they are copyvios (Google searches usually work well), the appropriate thing is to follow the procedure described in WP:CSD A8, namely insert a tag in the article
{{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}
and notify uploader on their talk page with:
{{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~
Dpbsmith (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Thomas Marshall Child Murder of 1997

Tragic, but not encyclopaedic. Pilatus 00:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge then delete the original articles. —Cleared as filed. 22:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultimate Ren & Stimpy Collection", "Seasons Three and A Half-ish", Seasons one and two

Information is far too trivial. If really warranted, information could be merged into Ren and Stimpy. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


DELETE THIS!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (13/4).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman Hausherr

Not notable, WP:Autobiography Dbchip 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied, no assertion of notability. --Phroziac(talk) 03:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevlin Henney

Not notable, WP:Autobiography Dbchip 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Being in a user group, even as an active member does not establish notoriety. If this is the limit of his accomplishments, delete. --Lucent 01:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Barring some greater accomplishment, being an expert or having expertise is not sufficient. We don't allow Random J. Professor, and each is, by nature, an expert. Geogre 03:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The article has been recreated, with more documentation. However, the additional material is merely more detail about the gentleman's publications. I still see no more effect on the world than the usual professor, so no change of vote by me. Geogre 14:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Comedy Man

This is a review of the film (as so admitted by original editor in edit summary) and therefore original research. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Tumwater, Washington. - Mailer Diablo 23:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tumwater

Delightfully poetic, but page at Tumwater, Washington already covers this and more. Alcon San Croix 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of pejorative political puns

Most of these, rather than being any sort of pun, are simply lame attacks on people. There are no references, no cites, and no reason to believe that this page will be anything but a dropping ground for whatever dumb nickname people come up with for the famous people they dislike. —Cleared as filed. 01:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- nothing but personal attacks. Reyk 01:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only to the extent that refs can be sourced (by something other than a blog, please). Move to a better name, too. Yes, this is "nothing but personal attacks", but not the author's own inventions - rather, a sort of anthropological record of personal attacks (and some complimentary alliterations) historically made by others. BD2412 T 02:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Valid and potentially interesting topic, crap content, which is a keep, I guess. I tried doing the cleanup, a while ago; reverted shortly thereafter. Didn't have the heart to fight it, but sourcing isn't the least of our problems - most of that page isn't actually any form of pun, and many of the ones that are puns are so contrived I have a hard time classing them as that. Ho hum. Shimgray | talk | 02:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed a set of not-puns, going for a nice scattershot effect across the political spectrum. But this is riddled with them, and some are actually pretty interesting - there's some historically notable nicknames there - in the UK, Howard's "Dracula", Chamberlain's "Great Appeaser", or the wonderful "Chat-show Charlie"; in the US, "Tailgunner Joe" which it would be nice to have collected. A lot of the puns that aren't just examples of "made up 'cause I think it sounds funny" (cf/ Ulysses S. Graft) are/were actually in use as nicknames - "Dumbya" or "Bliar" are pretty common, I remember "Clintonista" cropping up a good bit (though not as a personal nickname), and a collation of these is encyclopedic - especially when we start going back to the c19th, politics used to run on this stuff. So, I've rolled back, and suggest...
    • Rename to List of perjorative political nicknames, keep all the stuff that's actually a) verifiable and b) ever got used in any significant amount, and see what it looks like then. (Alternately, rename to simply List of political nicknames, and bring in the positive ones, too... which I suppose is probably a better idea. We already have List of U.S. Presidential nicknames, and the wonderful Politician and personality nicknaming in Quebec, could bring in stuff from List of nicknames of historical personages... it has potential. Shimgray | talk | 02:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and ruthlessly purge and source. The POV explanations have to go, too. Matthew Brown 02:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: "Good topic/bad content" is, for me, a clear delete, but I think it's a bad topic, too. While we wait for the ideal authors to emerge and correct the mess, we have persistent "crap," and there's simply no need for that. The ideal author will create a new page as certainly as remedy this morass. However, a "pun" is in the ear of the beholder, and "pejorative" is in the ear of the beholder, and the list of such doubly subjective things would serve no actual purpose in that it would not be exportable, nor would it illuminate any other subject. Thus, it is inherenly POV and does not serve the function of a list. Geogre 03:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tough call. Delete, due to insensitivity. How would you like to be made fun of? It's more of a discussion topic amongst friends, or a joke in some casual form, but not in an encyclopedia. - splot 04:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK)
  • Delete this silly, recentist listcruft. Marskell 10:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 11:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SpLoT and Geogre. Anville 11:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, many of these pejorative nicknames are valid and notable. All we need to check out for POV violations - items that claim a particular politician is something, other than he/she is called something. — JIP | Talk 17:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though major refactoring is in order (it can be dealt with once the AFD is dispensed with). Agree with others that all entries must be sourced; and that POV material should be removed. (Note--explainations of an insult are OK as long as they are couched with appropriate disclaimer--Wikipedia must not take the position that a given politician, right or left, is bad). Note: Were a suitable refactoring to be proposed which included deletion of this page, I might vote to delete--but absent a concrete proposal for a better home for the content here, my vote is to keep. --EngineerScotty 19:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for delightful alliteration (though, sadly, moving it to List of pejorative political nicknames may be necessary). Add clean-up and cite-sources tags instead of VfD ones, fellas! Think of stuff like this from a long-term rather than a short-term perspective, as Wikipedia's not on a deadline: it's easier to have a mediocre article and slowly improve it over the years than to repeatedly delete and undelete it again and again until finally everyone's satisfied. If the subject matter's good and the article sucks, improve the article! -Silence 22:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the point I was making in the nomination was that the subject matter sucks too. Obviously not everyone agrees. —Cleared as filed. 22:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then perhaps the dispute is semantic. There's not a lot of difference between whether we delete this article and make a new one for a general "list of pejorative nicknames" of sorts, or whether we move it to a new title and completely restructure and rewrite it, citing sources. It's just slightly easier to do the latter, since we have actual material to work with. -Silence 22:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied, no assertion of notability. brenneman(t)(c) 06:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel "The Captain" Johnstone

Bio of non-notable grade 12 student Dlyons493 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as per my nom. Don't think Winner of Victory Christian Schools Highest Award is a valid claim to notability. Dlyons493 Talk 01:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under category A7 non-notable biography. Supposedly known as "Captain Charisma" because he is the top salesman in his store and the winner of the Victory Christian Schools highest award. Also, supposedly a budding professional wrestler. However, according to Google, it hasn't budded very much as a search for "Daniel Johnstone" wrestler comes up with 4 hits, none of which are relevant see [1]. Capitalistroadster 01:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted by me: The "claims of notability" were that he won a school award, works at an electronics store, and is an "amateur professional wrestler" (which is like being a little bit pregnant or having jumbo shrimp or the world's tallest midget). Geogre 03:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Id museum

A web site. The article presents no evidence of notability. dbenbenn | talk 01:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Running Maniacs

Non-notable running club. ERcheck 01:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was boldly redirected to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. BD2412 T 14:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jurokk

Non-notable Star Wars article. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 19:47, 15 November 2005 (CDT)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 12:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samizdata

not notable, one sentence article Skrewler 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability assertion per the Guardian "Samizdata, by some measures the nation's most successful independent blog, claims around 15,000 different visitors a day;" [5]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. This is an A1 and A3 (linkspam) speedy, and so the deleters have things heavily on their side. I am firmly discounting Hipocrite's comment: it is not an appropriate way to participate in AfD. I find Gateman1997 and Yuckfoo to have extremely weak positions having cited no reason at all for their recommendation. If either of them had put their article edits where their comments are, then things would clearly be different. Jtmichcock on the other hand at least has something to say. If Hipocrite wants a Deletion Review, s/he is free to request one himself. -Splashtalk 04:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infobase

NN, D ComCat 02:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was that there's some things in life money can't buy, for everything else there's BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fake spanish

UE nonsense, delete. ComCat 02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus - default to keep JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


St. Stephens High School, Hickory, North Carolina

NN, D ComCat 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Geogre performed the deletion. WikiFanatic 03:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Baughman

NN, D ComCat 02:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was GARGLE TREE. -Splashtalk 04:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Ararat Middle School (Topsham, Maine)

NN, D ComCat 02:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I am firmly discounting Hipocrite's comment again, and am pleased to see a similar one by another editor withdrawn. There are decent, if minimal, arguments made for retaining the content so there's no consensus to delete. Someone does need to fix the article and its title, though. -Splashtalk 04:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jiminy Lummox/Bass Masters

NN, D ComCat 02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Celestianpower háblame 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blop

This article just keeps on coming back, and seems to be a magnet for invention. On 2005-11-16 a blop was a "ball created from the tacky substance used on the back of adhesives", which was discussed and found wanting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blop/2005-11-16. On 2006-04-17 a blop was "a variation on chili-con-carne", which was deleted via {{prod}} on the grounds that there was no evidence to be found that this was true. Now, blopping is purportedly what bloggers do to one another.

Yes, some participants on one single web site use this protologism. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there is nothing whatsoever written on the subject of blopping which can be used as source material for an encyclopaedia article about it, partly because the word's only properly attested meaning is something completely different: spluttering. (See Krister LINDEN and Jussi PIITULAINEN (2004-05-31). "Discovering Synonyms and Other Related Words" (PDF). CompuTerm 2004 — 3rd International Workshop on Computational Terminology.).

This article is at the wrong title, per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), this meaning for this verb is a protologism, and there's apparently nothing to write about what blopping actually is. Uncle G 14:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whitworth Park

University accomodation block. These have to be notable to be included. This one aint and is a badly formatted article full of student cruft. -- RHaworth 02:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is also a redirect at Withworth Park. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus - default to keep 11 delete/ 3 redirect - JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Lady Caroline Faber

NN, D ComCat 02:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason_Kottke

Previous VfD listed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Kottke (1st nomination)

Not notable, vanity/advertisement. This guy is a blogger, made a font, is his "Lifetime Achievement Award" some kind of plea for his notability? Skrewler 02:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 11:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

McMartin preschool

NN, D ComCat 02:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Preschools are not notable, but this legal case apparently is. Sorry for not withdrawing this earlier but my free time is limited. ComCat 05:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Lasica

Not notable, does every blogger need their own wiki article? Skrewler 02:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_16&oldid=28466049"