Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 193.61.200.140 (talk) at 10:02, 25 June 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

June 25

Soft redirect to:Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 02:15 (UTC)

Father Armeni

I don't even think this is funny. Inventor of chop suey? lol. We should put this on the Worst Jokes thing. WB 06:55, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Waste of storage? -- WB 06:58, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's not a speedy criterion. I don't think this one is a speedy candidate since if the information was true, it would certainly be worth keeping. — Ливай | ☺ 08:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete --Ragib 07:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While our article on chop suey does acknowledge the food as "pseudo-Chinese cuisine" and doesn't explicitly name its inventor (which at first led me to believe this might not be as ridiculous as it sounds), after a little research on Google it seems whoever wrote this article was confused or mistaken. Father Armeni, it seems, was just an Armenian man who was quoted by the band System of a Down in their song Chop Suey!. — Ливай | ☺ 08:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (unless someone writes a serious bio) - I hope someday this guy gets a serious article written about him; his name is apparently associated with the Armenian Genocide of 1915, but, alas, he seems to have nothing to do with chop suey. -Eisnel 09:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - http://www.snopes.com/food/origins/chopsuey.htm I recognise that website as trustworthy and it often debunks myths. Anyway Father Armeni will never be expanded since there is virtually no information about him.
  • Delete Joke or just someone's confusion. --Etacar11 19:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 04:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ignore my comment about getting better info. As anonymous poster above suggests, it's not clear if there is such a person, or if, perhaps, this "Father Armeni" is a nickname of some sort. Unless someone gets concrete info, I suggested deletion (thus, vote modified -Harmil 01:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)

VX2

Not notable. --W(t) 00:09, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC) *Comment - it gets 145,000 Google hits, and people like Lavasoft provide specific tools for dealing with it. WP:NOT a FAQ, but there is Category:Spyware, Category:Malware and Category:Computer viruses. No vote yet, while I do a little looking around. -Splash 00:42, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete — I'm persuaded.Splash 5 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
  • Oh, I suppose I should say for fairness sake I did remove some external links from the article per WP:EL before deciding to VfD it. --W(t) 00:48, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna say Weak delete... virii, trojans and spyware aren't really something we need to cover in too much depth (i.e. an article for each individual one). If it's one of the more famous of its kind, perhaps a merge into a list of such things would be preferable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:53, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is impossible to maintain individual viruses on Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 01:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into one article with a list of viruses and descriptions. EatAlbertaBeef 04:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge if it's possible. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a virus database. Too tough to maintain and whatnot. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge possibly. Although the virus database thing he said up there may just be a good idea, but only for important viruses... but then again we already have pages for the really important viruses. So merge Redwolf24 06:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete - You can fill an encyclopedia with malware information! (Look at symantec's website...) --Phroziac (talk) 13:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It was started by me and isn't edited much... so I'd say delete. After reading the posts here, I must say they are valid and no one has expanded it much, so I won't keep it. I created it as a stub for the dead links... - LostAccount 18:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 02:55 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:29 (UTC)

Jeff Jack

Vanity. A google search doesn't seem to reveal anything signifcant and notable about multi-user dungeons and the allegedly existing person, or with Stephen Hawking, or anything similar. Delete. -- Natalinasmpf 00:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete tenuous connection to Hawking is that he worked on the CD version of Hawking's book, presumably as a graphic designer, but the article doesn't say. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Firing squad. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Splash 00:45, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete along with the silly links from Grinnell, Iowa, Jeffrey (name) and Jeff. Pburka 00:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 01:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. -Hmib 01:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity? Redwolf24 06:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please do not bite the newcomers - I suggested to the author to post this. It is sourced from personal research and corporate material. The subject at hand played a key role in defining technology for GoTo, PriceGrabber, Price.com, PartsAmerica and literally dozens of other significant web applications. I have further suggested to the author to expand the information gathering to cite sources. As an influencer and guide, this subject is an unsung hero. I suggest letting her (the author) complete her attempt.
    • (unsigned comment by BigRedOne, only edits here and to the page in question)
  • Delete nn vanity/promotion. --Etacar11 19:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanitycruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:36 (UTC)

Protein ontology

Self-promotion; notability debatable. Presumably the topic deserves an article, but it might be better to start afresh. -- Avocado 00:29, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

  • Delete, would be speedyable as a platform for a link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:40, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Uhh.... Ok, well, get rid of it, and get an actual encyclopedic article for it. So, clean-up really... I think. Satanicbowlerhat 01:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It the opic is real article will be created. Pavel Vozenilek 01:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if rewritten. The topic is encyclopedic but the current article is just advertising. JamesBurns 04:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The project is ambitious, far from completion and I'm not entirely sure it's encyclopaedic under this title PdDemeter 05:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Me thinks this falls under the ol' crystal ball category. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:06, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Oh joy, turning Wikipedia into an advertisement. Though this may be keepable if he wrote... What protein ontology even is! otherwise Delete like the wind Redwolf24 06:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as written. -- BD2412 talk 12:53, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
  • Keep see my edits, below the rule in the page in question. If we decide it's acceptable, just blank the original bits above the rule. -Harmil 01:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep Harmil's version. No need to delete if we've got something sensible to put there -- it is a potentially valid topic for an encyclopedia article. -- Avocado 04:06, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Josh Parris ✉ 29 June 2005 06:16 (UTC)
  • Keep as re-written and expand, obviously. Bubamara 29 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 6, 2005 00:58 (UTC)

Unpop Art Movement

Article about group of people (founded in 2003) "who often deal with similar cultural and aesthetic themes; generally speaking, the application of decidedly unpopular concepts via popular - often fun - media".

The article looks like vanity and is rather poorly written. There are 56 Google references, some generated by Wikipedia. I would suggest to wait until the group becomes popular enough. Pavel Vozenilek 01:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I get 115 Google hits. But anyway, Delete for vanity. CanadianCaesar 01:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Is there any evidence to show that it's actually vanity? Factitious 00:51, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion. JamesBurns 04:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ^ditto^ Redwolf24 06:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no-notable vanity. But I bid 71 unique Google hits. -Splash 14:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as self-promotion. Hall Monitor 04:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Do we know that the article was created by members of the movement solely for the purpose of promoting themselves? Factitious 00:51, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. Article needs improvement (to get it away from vanity), not removal. Morning star 22:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The problem is, the article is here since October 2004 and not much improvement has been done on it. None, to be exact. Pavel Vozenilek 00:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a movement with at least three members who are notable enough to have lengthy Wikipedia articles. It's notable. Factitious 00:51, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please note that none of those articles about the three "members" actually mention this "movement," so it can't be too significant in their lives. Delete this and all other artists and art movements that are not documented in notable academic or industry publications or media outlets. Self-referential vanity. Come back after Artforum writes about them. Postdlf 29 June 2005 05:04 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it needs improvement (and I agree that it does), improve it. I tend to think that the impact this group has made on the counterculture is well documented in texts such as Apocalypse Culture and the like. So, it should stay, as the indivduals who are collected under the UnPop umbrella are all established artisans in their own right. I went ahead and fixed the lead and split it into two paragraphs. blood_victory 29 June 2005 15:32 (UTC)
The Unpop Art Movement is not documented at all in the article Apocalypse Culture, nor do any of the artisans linked from the article make mention of it. Hall Monitor 29 June 2005 15:57 (UTC)
  • It isn't mentioned because it didn't exist as an entity when the book came out ca. 1989. This is a loose collective of like-minded individuals who happen to approach their various crafts with relatively the same jaundiced (sic) worldview. Maybe if we didn't call it a "movement" and instead focused on just how this collective is different from all others that have preceeded it in type and deed. Dada is undefinable. Surrealism is subjective. UnPop is similarly in the eye of the beholder. Neither you nor I can safely say what it is. To delete this because one doesn't comprehend its impact on the counterculture is INDEFENSABLE.blood_victory 30 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotion. Also vanity and non-notable. Article appears to be original research too. Quale 30 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a legitimate art movement with active members across the country. It is a relatively new movement, so articles edited by other people may not reflect involvement. Artforum articles don't make an art movement legitimate. KevinISlaughter 30 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like a promotion to me. Ashibaka (tock) 30 June 2005 18:35 (UTC)
  • Delete, promocruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)
  • Keep, and tag it for improvement. It's a notable subject, though the article needs a little work. There is still valid content there. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:45 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Phroziac (talk) 14:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marvin Morgan

This looks like a VfD that was never added to the log on Jun 5, so I'm completing the nomination. This looks speedy to me. Nominator's comment below.-Splash 01:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Dubious biography on a person I'm struggling to get even an iota of info either on the web or in the print edition. Either this is a prank or a note on some obscure business genius, either way i doubt if it deserves a place in wikipedia. i've never heard of pop fizz inc. have you?--Idleguy 08:54, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
I also veto this entry. Worthless information from someone trying to see if he/she can keep a posting on wiki.(Unsigned comment by anon. IP 24.19.42.197)-Splash 01:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as clear patent nonsense. Also delete the image that goes with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kwanzaa.jpg Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Is it really necessary to inline that huge image on this page? Just {{ifd}} it -- this page is big enough already. --Tabor 01:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, that's better. Thanks! --Tabor 01:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. Patent nonsense. Pburka 01:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. As per above. -Hmib 01:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 04:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied as blatant nonsense. "At the age of 6, he had already learned 13 different languages and was an expert in the field of baby-making"? Please. — Gwalla | Talk 04:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Holosoth

vanity page Doctor Whom 01:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Vanity, 'nuff said. -Hmib 01:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 04:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ^Ditto^. EatAlbertaBeef 04:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ^ -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:04, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Obvious Vanity Redwolf24 06:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe Speedy according to the "Very short articles with little or no context" rule. Otherwise, it's got 2 google hits. -Eisnel 09:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn pointless vanity. --Etacar11 19:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity -Harmil 01:29, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a Rolodex. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)
  • Delete. I saw this linked from Bemanistyle. I thought "holosoth" was, perhaps, something else he named himself after. I was wrong. :( Azure Haights July 3, 2005 03:17 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Michael Singleton

Deus Homoni added {{subst:vfd}} to this article on June 16th, but didn't create the subpage. I am completing the process now. --Canderson7 01:44, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - Informative. (Unsigned vote by 24.210.54.156.)
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. Pburka 01:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like vanity. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, not notable. Cleduc 03:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless it gives some reason for being notable... Redwolf24 06:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, no suggestion of notability. -Eisnel 09:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn DS1953 18:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox -LostAccount 18:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 19:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Jonel | Speak 04:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (Sorry for not creating the subpage) yeah, It fails to establish notablity; as far as I can see it's a vanity page. Deus Homoni 13:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity -Harmil 01:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanitycruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:22 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirected to McClintock. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)

McClintock (disambiguation)

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was "unnecessary disambig page - articles have two differnt titles". McClintock is already a disambig page. — Gwalla | Talk 01:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Useful disambiguation page. Pburka 02:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand the reason for the nomination. 23skidoo 02:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: What don't you understand about it? It's a redundant and pointless disambig. — Gwalla | Talk 02:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This nomination appears to be incorrect. It points at McClintock when the nominated page is actually McClintock (disambiguation). I vote to keep McClintock and delete McClintock (disambiguation). Pburka 03:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Ah, thanks for pointing that out. Fixed now. Yes, the fate of McClintock is not at issue here. — Gwalla | Talk 04:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - As said, disambig page already exists at McClintock. -- Cabhan 05:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is no point here. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:03, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to McClintock seems simpler, but Delete is OK too. -Eisnel 09:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecessary with McClintock already a dab. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirect to McClintock. There is, I have discovered, a very good reason to keep "Foo (disambiguation)" pages that point at "Foo", which happens to be a disambig page - it makes it easier to sort out and clean up erroneous links to disambig pages, by setting aside instances where the link is actually intended to point to the disambig. -- BD2412 talk 16:54, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
  • Redirect to McClintock. — RJH 18:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:45 (UTC)

Dinowhip

Only comes up with one google hit [1] and that page is an add for a company with an email address of dinowhip1@***.com which incidentally is the user ID of the creator. Given that, seems like a form of neologism to me. Although I could see it being merged with bullwhip, I'd have to say delete for now. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Term does not appear to be widely used. Pburka 02:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The original version of this article was speedied. Given the almost complete absence of Googlability I'd have to say delete as unverifiable, possible nonsense, even though the link in the article appears to be a site dating from 2000 which, if true, would mean it wasn't a neologism. Must write in shorter sentences. -Splash 02:23, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ^ditto that all^ Redwolf24 06:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ^^^ -Eisnel 09:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dinocruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:47 (UTC)

Software solutions

No content Samw 02:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Should have been speedied for nonsense when it was created... but delete now that its here anyways. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a web hosting service. Gazpacho 03:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As mentioned on its talk page, such articles are more appropriate for |Wikibooks, and even then each article should be directed at a specific type of software or area of software. Ben Babcock 05:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's more appropriate for wikibooks, but only when it actually has some content. PdDemeter 05:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. utcursch | talk June 30, 2005 08:41 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 21:48 (UTC)

Xenoarchy

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was "original research; Google returns no hits". — Gwalla | Talk 02:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: all true, zero Google hits, appears to be 'original research'. Gblaz 02:55, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research, neologism. JamesBurns 04:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Xenarchy" gets lots of Google hits, but all that I looked at were not relevant (mostly screen names). Delete. -Sean Curtin 04:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as personal theory and non-notable: nobody has written a book on it, and it does not exist! Falcon 05:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. --Misterwindupbird 06:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is original research but I hope it finds a home somewhere off wikipedia - it is a clever idea. GabrielF 17:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn neologism. --Etacar11 20:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was KEEP.

Santos FC

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason was "article criterion#1". My understanding of criterion 1 is that the contents of the article do not go significantly beyond what can be gleaned from the title; however, someone unfamiliar with soccer is unlikely to know that Santos FC is the name of a soccer club, or the name of one of its star players. On the other hand, it's a tiny little substub. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 02:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, even if it eventually becomes a redirect to an article of another name. There's an article for every group of hairless primates that chases a ball, why not this one? Cleduc 03:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It may be only a tiny stub, but Santos is one of the world's most famous soccer clubs. Its best known player was a guy named Pele. I shall attempt a rewrite. Grutness...wha? 06:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm closing this as a speedy keep, as nobody's actually given a valid reason for deletion. Merging what little extra content there is into Santos Futebol Clube, and done. sjorford →•← 09:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 22:22 (UTC)

Dennis Ng

Notability not established Samw 02:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, copied from his web page. Gazpacho 03:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, and copied from elsewhere. Harro5 03:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability not established. CanadianCaesar 08:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn professor vanity. --Etacar11 20:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "copied from elsewhere" is not a problem in this case (you can submit your own writing to WP, after all), but I agree that notability has not been established. -Harmil 01:36, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 3, 2005 22:25 (UTC)

OniKiri : Demon killer

It is vanity, not notable webcomic --Kiba 03:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable webcomic, just started last month. — Gwalla | Talk 04:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable comic. JamesBurns 04:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the stated, boring reasons. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:03, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, and I'll eat my hat if it ever is. --Misterwindupbird 06:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Celestianpower/Delete
  • Delete. Non-notable. mikka (t) 28 June 2005 18:38 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kinda notable in that it's the only trilingual webcomic (that is author-translated, not fan-translated) I can think of. But no link, no references on Google, and such enlightening information as "It is a copyrighted work" makes this a deletion candidate. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:18 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete after being put on Wikinews. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)

Maureen Faibish

Defendant in a pit bull dog attack. Delete Transfer to Wikinews, not notable. Gazpacho 03:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abstain This is trash but "Faibish bit bull San Francisco" gets over 5000 google hits. Wikipedia is full of stuff no worse than this, which will be a big deal at the checkout counters for a month or two. --Wetman 03:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep if expanded. News coverage on this story as far away as Australia - borderline notable. JamesBurns 04:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is actually a pretty big deal in the SF bay area, and has been all over the news. Granted, the current stub doesn't say much, but it's verifiable and notable. — Gwalla | Talk 04:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Transwiki to Wikinews. Porturology makes an excellent point. — Gwalla | Talk 20:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move Seems more suited to wikinews PdDemeter 05:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It'a not so much the dog mauling per se that makes this noteable - but the amount of notoriety this woman has gained with that interview has made her a 'household name' in the Bay Area and as such warrants a mention in Wikipedia.
  • Transwiki to Wikinews. Sustainabilty of notoriety is very doubtful. "coverage as far away as Australia" ! - there is a picture in today's Sydney Morning Herald of an american dog wearing sunglasses - does this make the dog a subject for an encyclopaedia article?--Porturology 07:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It would if the dog could talk on television interviews and gave birth to a kid, which was then killed in a pit bull attack. JamesBurns 04:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If it gets kept, someone should correct the information, because July 24 2005 hasn't happened yet. DS 16:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki from Wikipedia to Wikinews is not allowed, for copyright reasons. A Wikinews article would have to be written from scratch. If I have the time today, I'll do so, I've done so, since this is newsworthy. I strongly suggest that all of the editors who have voted for transwiki reconsider their votes in light of the fact that what they want is not permitted. (Any of them is welcome to go to Wikinews xyrself and beat me to writing an article. ☺) Uncle G 13:19, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
  • Delete as there is now a wikinews article--Porturology 23:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:49 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 14:21 (UTC)

Galaxy Desserts

Without adequate explanation of its significance, this ends up being little more than an advertisement. --Alan Au 03:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yellow pages, the Wikipedia is not! -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:01, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising vanity - this is on the verge of being an "a very short article with little or no context". -Splash 23:49, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a fairly well known company which has national exposure. I added a better version of the page, below a rule (see page in question). If people think it's worth keeping, just remove the original version above the rule. -Harmil 01:56, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As Harmil said, it is a well-known company with 11000 hits on Google. It also looks like a valid entry now -- _not_ "a very short article with little or no context"
  • Keep 11000 hits on Google deserves a mention. Since the article has been re-written by Harmil it can be kept.
  • Keep. It's a fine article now. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:51 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

Thomas Vaughan (poet)

Duplicate of Henry Vaughan with incorrect title, not useful as redirect: Thomas Vaughan was a philsopher, not a poet. Cleduc 03:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as duplicate content. JamesBurns 04:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above - But are you sure it's not Henry and Thomas's brother, also named Thomas, who evilly got credit for everything both of his brothers did, without doing anything? --Phroziac (talk) 14:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: If this is a duplicate of our Henry Vaughan article, then that needs help, too. Wow. Influenced Wordsworth, eh? There is stuff to say about the man's poetry. Geogre 05:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy delete --Phroziac (talk) 14:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comrade Che

Site does not exist. And if it did, it would be non-notable. Note: both outward links are to porn sites. I think we're getting spammed, might be speediable. humblefool® 04:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as-speedy-as-possible. Good catch! FreplySpang (talk) 04:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 04:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied. — Gwalla | Talk 04:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)

2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Impact on Global Media

The article seems mostly to be about how the Dec 2004 tsunami might well have an impact on the use of "tsunami" in trade names (for which the media are pretty much irrelevant) and the metaphorical use of the word in the media. Thus it seems to be mistitled; it would better be 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami impact on the non-literal use of the word "tsunami" -- which of course is laborious and hardly the kind of thing this encyclopedia usually covers.

That's its purpose at one level, at least. At another, it uses findings from the Global Language Monitor and is written in such a way that it's hard not to suspect that it's the GLM rather than "tsunami" that's the main subject here.

We learn that the use of the word "tsunami" in "the" (which?) "mass media" grew enormously immediately after the big one. This of course is no surprise, but the only evidence is that provided by GLM. A look in the discussion page reveals that the article was in effect written by GLM, so this is original research. But let's not belabor this: we really don't need research to tell us that "tsunami" became much more widely written and spoken after the big tsunami.

We then read that Among the immediate impacts were found to be that Tsunami-related product names began to undergo intense scrutiny and that sporting organizations had to reassess tsunami-related team names. If true, this wouldn't be surprising -- but no examples are given of name changes (proposed or actual), and there are no further details.

There's then a rehash of the derivation of tsunami and the inappropriateness of the term "tidal wave", a prediction of the future effect on "the world of consumer packaged goods" and another prediction of the effect on journalistic metaphorical hyperbole.

There's nothing interesting here: just speculation, original research into what doesn't even need research, and a bit of plugging for one service, GLM. And if the article were rewritten without irrelevance and following research that did not depend on proprietary algorithms and such mumbo-jumbo, my guess is that all it would say is that some people became rather less keen on the figurative use of a single word. This would be pretty vacuous. Delete. -- Hoary 04:10, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Abstain. I didn't look at the article. I just wanted to say that this is the longest reason for delete ever! Congratulations on the record. --Lord Voldemort 23:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Some of the information into the 2004 Tsunami article and delete this one. EatAlbertaBeef 04:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Merge and delete" is an invalid vote (see Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. If content is merged, a redirect must be left to preserve attribution history. — Gwalla | Talk 04:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Question: What "information"? I think there is none, aside from (i) "tidal wave" is a misnomer (which we already know); (ii) "tsunami" is derived from such and such (which we already know); (iii) the media talked more about "tsunami" after 26 Dec 04 than before (which is obvious); (iv) "tsunami" has been used figuratively (which is trivial). -- Hoary 05:08, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
  • Delete POV original research and speculation. JamesBurns 04:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - too far over the line into original research and crystal ball-gazing. Personally I have seen no lasting impact on the use of the term tsunami or on media in general and I spend far too much time watching for these sorts of things. 23skidoo 07:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Content-free ramblings; mostly a plug for PJJP's GLM. --Macrakis 16:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete somewhat interesting original research that you'd normally to expect to find on page 35 of your daily newspaper. CanadianCaesar 23:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, possible advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. It's not original research. It cites its source. Just take out all the references to GLM and replace them with one reference at the bottom of the main Indian Ocean tsunami page, then merge all the useful content. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 15:54 (UTC)
    • What "useful content"? -- Hoary July 2, 2005 18:46 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect --Allen3 talk July 6, 2005 01:14 (UTC)

Chase Stein

Duplicate of content at Runaways (comics). humblefool® 04:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Runaways (comics) — Gwalla | Talk 04:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete duplicate content. JamesBurns 04:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Runaways (comics). User who created this page has created pages for every member of the Runaways. I've been turning them into redirects, but if those an editor wants to delete those redirects, I'll change my vote on this one to Delete. --Pc13 09:29, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)

Lola valley

Non-notable town park. — Gwalla | Talk 04:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Mgm as linkspam with little content (speedy criterion 1) --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 15:21 (UTC)

Fumbbl

Not entirely sure what makes this notable, since page doesn't contain enough information. At present, just an advertisement. --Alan Au 04:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • 'Delete. NatusRoma 05:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - PdDemeter 05:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. Almost a speedy candidate with its lack of content. JamesBurns 06:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not almost - definitely. Speedy delete as a place to promote the linked site and lack of content (speedy section 1). - Mgm|(talk) 17:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 15:28 (UTC)

Shrivel

non-notable ArrowmanCoder 04:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete I don't see either portion of this article as being notable ArrowmanCoder 05:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, but remove the gamecruft. -Sean Curtin 05:03, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove the fancruft and keep the article. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:00, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Remove the games ad. JamesBurns 06:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there's no wither, wane or rumple, why this?. --Misterwindupbird 06:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly move to shrivelling. Not having one article is not a reason not to have another. Kappa 09:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary for gosh sakes. A dictionary definition is all this will ever be. If I'd labelled it so, however, some little person would have come and complained to me. So, while we're all voting on "shrivel" the trash is piling up at New Pages. --Wetman
  • Weak Keep. This is more that a dictdef as it provides a (brief) description of the physical process of shrivelling. (i.e. it tries to answer the why as well as the what). Pburka 13:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the first part and expand the first part, merge the second. Capitalistroadster 15:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, gamecruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 15:33 (UTC)

Demokratia

Delete - It is "an N.G.O. that has been initiated in thought but not in action." Therefore unverifiable. FreplySpang (talk) 04:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Theoretical organization that does not exist. — Gwalla | Talk 05:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this advertising for vaporware. -- Hoary 05:20, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
  • Delete . . . it's not notable, poorly written, does not belong here. Ben Babcock 05:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Crap. — Phil Welch 05:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Initiated in thought?" Puhleese. --Misterwindupbird 06:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 15:42 (UTC)

World of Avlis

A server/community of the Neverwinter Nights online computer game. Not inherently notable. -Sean Curtin 04:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 15:48 (UTC)

The Cookbook

This page and all of its redirects. It smells like some kind of advert, and is clearly not notable in any way: the album has not even been released yet! Falcon 05:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I retract my nomination, as the album seems to exist and the article has been cleaned up. I vote keep. Falcon 18:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I just made those redirects to prevent confusion with the cookbook article (I didn't create the actual album article itself). And an album that hasn't been released yet does NOT mean it's not notable!!! Have a look on other albums' articles which haven't been released yet, like Hypnotize by System of a Down, to be released in more than 3 months time!!! How are they "adverts"? Actually this album has already been leaked to the Internet already, next time at least use a search engine to search for it to see if anyone else think's it's notable or not. secfan 05:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ummm..now Wikimedia has a lot of server power to spare these days meaning the search results pages are back which makes finding obscure articles easily. I don't think all those redirects would help much. --Krystyn Dominik 06:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The search feature doesn't work all of the time, and try searching "cookbook", you won't find the album there at all... that's why I also had to put a disambiguation link on the top of the Cookbook article itself. secfan 06:21, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • Redirects like that are very helpful, apart from searches they also aid linking. Anyway redirects are deleted automatically when a page is, you don't need to mention them in the nomination. Kappa 09:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Bitch Slap (..delete) - Not encyclopedic. --24.186.249.15 05:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • How can it be not encyclopedic, it's just a description of what the album is... and it's just a stub anyway... secfan 05:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - It is officially the upcoming album (official name and release date are confirmed by Amazon.com) of a popular American hip hip musician, Missy Elliott. The song "Lose Control" is being played a lot in radio and television stations. There are gazillions of music albums articles in Wikipedia. This should be included in Wikipedia. Strong keep vote from me. --Krystyn Dominik 06:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep 64.12.116.137 06:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Albums do seem to get a fair bit of coverage by Wikipedia, and if we have an article for the upcoming Spider-Man 3, why not an upcoming album? CanadianCaesar 08:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep No cheesier than Amici Forever Wikipedia is full of this stuff. --Wetman 08:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable and verifiable, if possibly cheesy, album. Kappa 09:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - just be thankful that we don't yet allow every song to be its own article. -Eisnel 10:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; perfectly legitimate contribution if a little dull. jamesgibbon 13:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable album by notable artist. Capitalistroadster 16:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable album. DS1953 18:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep the record comes out week-after-next, and the lead single hit the Top 40 already (although I am a little peeved that there's only two Timbaland-produced tracks on the LP). --FuriousFreddy 19:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for obvious reasons. Silly deletion nomination. Volatile 29 June 2005 03:28 (UTC)
  • Super Keep! Many albums are listed before release! Super Orange! 4 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy keep --Jtkiefer 07:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


Puppet state

Page based soley on what users believe to be true, almost none of these puppet states have ever been proven to be puppets so this article is patently unencyclopedic Jtkiefer 05:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment please take note of this excerpt from the article States or governments accused of being puppets since 1900, word accused has been bolded emphasis. Jtkiefer 05:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Stupidest VfD nomination ever. — Phil Welch 05:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Considering the shape of the article, VfD is tempting. I do no object to keeping the article, though, unless that awful original research "list of countries accused of being puppet states" list is restored. 172 05:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • How about verifying it instead of blindly destroying information? — Phil Welch 05:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I do not need to verify it, and indeed I should not. Wikipedia is not the place for original research-- not mine nor anyone else's, as it lacks the capacity to develop its own criteria for such categorization schemes and then apply them. See my comments on the VfD page for Sixteen known nuclear crises of the Cold War for the same argument. 172 05:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • That is absurd--the list simply correlates known accused puppet states with occasional evaluative input as to the validity (in more famous cases). You might have a point at least in asking for cited sources, though I am not going to take responsibility for the material I didn't add personally. --TJive 06:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • It's a matter of historical record that North Korea considers South Korea a US puppet state, and that the US made the accusation that East Germany, Poland, et. al. were Soviet puppet states. That much is easily verifiable. Why not let others verify it instead of just destroying information? That's tantamount to vandalism. — Phil Welch 06:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that the nomination brings up some excellent points about this article, but the concept of the article itself is a good one. I just think it should be changed from a list to just a discussion of the concept of puppet states and possibly some historical examples. The beginning of the article is on the right track. (But to call this the "stupidest VfD nomination ever" is ... odd. User:Jtkiefer makes a decent argument, this isn't a nonsensical nomination.) kmccoy (talk) 05:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to clarify my reasoning behind this VFD, I have nominated due to the fact that this lists blind examples of accused puppet states, if this were about the concept of a Puppet state then this would fall right under wikipedia guidelines. Jtkiefer 05:47, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The comment, "States or governments accused of being puppets since 1990," is a precondition to neutrality on the matter for including examples--the point is rather elementary, and it preceded any input of mine. You say that, "almost none of these puppet states have ever been proven to be puppets," but refrain from giving criteria as to what constitutes such as proof--the point of the article is that it is an accusation leveled by individuals, organizations, and/or governments against other governments. It is hard to see that one may credibly deny that this is so, regardless of whether the accusation is true or not, and in several cases within the very list the quality of the accusation is lessened by a brief recount of the relevant history.
For an example take China; the communists receieved substantial assistance from Stalin and played a subservient role to its policy in the communist world from the establishment of the People's Republic, yet it came to resent its secondary status as well as Khrushchev's "revisionism" and broke in the coming decades, with an attempt to achieve an hegemony all its own. Hence, "Red China" was often considered in the west to be the Kremlin's implacable ally but this later proved to be farcical, and the point was played upon by American strategists from the Nixon to Reagan administrations.
I also took consideration into the matter of neutrality as it regards the order and listing of puppet "groups", with a simple chronological outlook--the first listed accused puppet state came from the US, then the USSR, and so on (as well as which state came before another on the same list). More groupings could be added, such as with France's colonialism, the coups, and counter-coups, but this is not an area I am knowledgeable in and requires that others participate, not simply vote to delete the matter.
Finally, the supposition of deletion itself rests upon the mere listing but the same attributions of semantic, relativist, propagandistic, and emotive rationales for terms can be found in the existence of articles for kulak, treason, freedom, resistance movement, freedom fighter, enemy of the people, satellite state, aggression, genocide, dictator, terrorist and numerous others--this should not imply that the existence and importance of the term be negated nor that it may actually be applied in many cases with species reasoning or not. In short, this dispute is more appropriate for the talk page and not at all proper in deciding for all-out deletion.
--TJive 05:48, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep I realize now (after discussions with wikipedia users) that this article does have hope if changed and that I probably made a mistake listing it for VFD in a case where I could have been Bold and edited it myself and with input of other users reworked this into a good article on the concept of a puppet state. Jtkiefer 06:02, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and NPOV it. - Sikon 06:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • puppet government and puppet regime redirect to puppet state. The last section of puppet points to it.) Anthony Appleyard 06:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 15:51 (UTC)

Sean Robins

Nominator did not add this to VFD log, doing so in is place Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete No noteable achievements. Likely a vanity page. Billhpike 04:32, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Sean has done nothing encyclopedia-worthy, sorry. humblefool® 04:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:15, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like a vanity page. Especially since the last edit is by User:Sean R. PdDemeter 06:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's vanity, and I hate articles made by the person in question. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:33, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. CanadianCaesar 08:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete waste of time and diskspace jamesgibbon 13:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, nothing notable here. --Etacar11 20:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, vanity. -Splash 23:51, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, vanity, and last edit by "Sean R" looks a bit malicious. Monicasdude 00:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Userfy --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 19:31 (UTC)

Harmisajedi

This article is vanity, and seems like a personal webpage, due to the quote at the top, the "about me", etc. The article was even seemingly written by the person in question (if one is notable, the article should probably come about by others, no?). It should probably be userfyed and removed from having its own article. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:58, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Could it be a botched attempt at creating a legit user page? CanadianCaesar 08:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy, probably the creator didn't understand the wikipedia system. Kappa 09:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy, probably an innocent mistake jamesgibbon 13:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Clear userfy to User:Harmisajedi. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. An honest mistake made by a new user. Rentastrawberry 17:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy since they actually have an account, with an appropriate version of a {{test1}} message. -Splash 23:52, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Author has made other contributions to Wikipedia. Userfy. Uncle G 14:56, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
  • Why is his user name red? Has he gone or is he from another language wiki? Jaberwocky6669 June 28, 2005 07:18 (UTC)
    • A red username simply means that he has no user page (like how article links go red when there is no article on the other end). It's not really significant :) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | June 28, 2005 21:49 (UTC)
      • The information in this article has now been moved to the contributor's user page. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk July 2, 2005 00:58 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 19:37 (UTC)

Saint-Chély-d'Aubrac

Not Encyclopedic, POV, Seems to be a list of external links made by a first time Wikipedian. Either Delete it or Rewrite the artcle. What part of Saint Chély d'Aubrac is noteable anyway? — Kjammer ⌂ 06:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Author attempted to remove the VFD tag. — Kjammer ⌂ 09:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, real place. Kappa 10:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Redirect to St chély d'aubrac which I have just spent some time cleaning up. Perhaps it should be the other way round. I don't think that towns have to be notable. Cutler 11:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We can have small French towns, just as much as all those one-horse places in the USA. Charles Matthews 11:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Saint Chély d'Aubrac and move to Saint-Chély d'Aubrac. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have followed DoubleBlue (Talk)'s suggestion and tried to write something sensible at Saint-Chély d'Aubrac. Will it do? Cutler 15:23, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Works for me. Now all the others should be redirects. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Keep Saint-Chély d'Aubrac article with others as redirects and expand. Real place with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 16:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect, I suppose. We have myriad nearly-nonexistent town, hamlets and outposts from several countries and France should be no different. I'm concerned that the new article is one long list of links with little actual material, but that's a different discussion. -Splash 23:54, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as for other such places. First time contributors are not bad people who should be punished for any mistakes they make. CalJW 00:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
VfD is by no means punishment. It's just the community's way of maintaining some sort of standard in the 'pedia. -Splash 00:35, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was unintelligible. I've gone ahead and been WP:BOLD by simply adding ithe members to Category:Free software. Breaking things down by license is pointless, IMO. The list has been deleted as unmaintainable. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)

List of programs released under the GPL

Unmaintainable. If it is done, it will be too huge, which makes it hard to read. Use "What links here" of the GPL article if you want a list of GPLed software minghong 06:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. As much as I might disagree, if we're gonna vote to keep the List of unusual personal names, we should keep this, no? --Misterwindupbird 06:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is more suitable as a category, not as an article. List of unusual personal names is not suitable for a category probably because you'd have it hanging around at the bottom of the articles and whatnot. But categorizing GAIM as GPL'd makes perfect sense, and categories automatically act as lists. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk |
  • Keep, but change the title to include 'notable' or 'well-known, otherwise it's misleading jamesgibbon 13:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorise it. --Celestianpower 13:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorize it. — Edwin Stearns | Talk 13:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jamesgibbon. Kappa 14:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, do not categorize. Rename and/or add a header to indicate that not every single GPL program needs to be on there. But subcategorizing programs by license is overcat'ing. Radiant_>|< 22:08, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unmaintainable. Categorize. Haikupoet 23:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator. This sets a precedent for lists of software released under all the available licenses, and you've only got to look at the image copyrights page to see what a mess that would make. If kept, do not categorify. -Splash 23:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorise. As a matter of policy every GPLed program with an article on Wikipedia is "notable". Tverbeek 00:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorize. This is good information but would be much more suitable in category form. The suggestion that people use What links here on the GPL article is ridiculous; that's non-obvious, additional work, and will give lots of irrelevant results. Nickptar 07:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong categorize. This is why we have categories. — Phil Welch 14:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorical keep, do not categorize. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 08:07 (UTC)
  • Categorize - easier to maintain. -Seth Mahoney June 29, 2005 22:19 (UTC)
  • Categorize. Some pages don't make it clear that they're talking about GPL software. A list on another page does not make that clear either. Categorization would. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)
  • Categorize - this would be perfectly appropriate as a category. That would also guarantee it only included notable programs. Superm401 | Talk July 2, 2005 16:02 (UTC)
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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 19:41 (UTC)

Pattaya today newspaper

  • Delete - straightforward advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 06:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is the Eastern Seaboard?? This is just an advertisement, probably written by an editor of the paper. Redwolf24 06:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Pattaya Today has been improving all down the line. It has more 'real' news than its competitors." Gee, do you think they could have made the advertisement a little less subtle? In the second section they drop the facade altogether and refer to the newspaper as "we." Delete this insult to our intelligence. CanadianCaesar 08:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No need for an explanation. Rentastrawberry 17:36, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and never, ever buy their newspaper. -Splash 23:56, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 19:50 (UTC)

Sanskriti O Biddya CharchaPit

Non notable group, the only google hits all show exactly same information which look promotional.

Correction: Google returns no hits other than promotional material inserted into Sufism. All google hits link to that promotional part or wikipedia mirrors. No separate reference to article found anywhere. --Ragib 07:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete:Non notable, vanity, group trying to promote itself. --Ragib 06:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete promo for a non notable group. JamesBurns 06:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep : notable group. already entried in sufism. - aminul Islam, Dhaka, Bangladesh <nazirbd@gononet.com> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.138.110 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of verifability. Also, delete references in Sufism as this for above reasons. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 00:25, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, promocruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:24 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Melee Trophies

It must be a sign of advancing age that I don't even understand what some of these articles are trying to be. I would say that this was an advert but there's no external link. It certainly doesn't look encyclopaedic. Cutler 09:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: To be fair, a little research could have told you what this is. Have a look at Super Smash Bros. Melee#Trophies. I would support a merge, but the completed list is about 300 trophies. So I am not sure what to do with it. Sonic Mew 09:52, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I edited the article so it would be a little less of an eyesore, and provided a link to Super Smash Bros. Melee, It should probably be re-titled List of Super Smash Bros. Melee Trophies, since the article would be mostly a list. — Kjammer ⌂ 10:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This should be merged, but how much? Should we give the Trophy descriptions? -- A Link to the Past 13:48, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, not a comfortable merge. Kappa 14:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't see the value in keeping such a list, particularly given its gross incompleteness at present. Mackensen (talk) 15:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. This information can easily be displayed on the page Super Smash Brothers, but I do not believe that it should have its own page on wikipedia. So merge or delete but preferably merge. Rentastrawberry 17:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: the information is already covered at GameFAQs, which Wiki Is Not; and besides, and do we REALLY want to be responsible for maintaining a list of three hundred trophies? Marblespire 18:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. The trophies in SSBM are just "souvenirs" that don't actually do anything; the vast majority are characters and items from other games by Nintendo. Nobody will need to look them up, because the descriptions are available from within the game. Title goes against guidelines. — Gwalla | Talk 20:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Super Smash Bros. Melee Satanicbowlerhat 22:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Also, this list would be way too big if completed. I mean, 300 entries? Nestea 00:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not a GamesFAQ. JamesBurns 04:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs, but parts of it are (and should remain so). Unfocused 29 June 2005 00:33 (UTC)
  • Delete, gamecruft. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:25 (UTC)
  • Keep. Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:12 (UTC)
  • Delete Cruft of the worst kind. WP:NOT GameFAQs. --FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 19:54 (UTC)

Chilipina

Dicdef, if not a neologism Cutler 09:24, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 20:00 (UTC)

Edgar Aranda

Vanity - actually gets 79 Google hits [2] but all confirming non-notable facts in article. Cutler 09:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

This is NOT vanity as im not Edgar!

Edgar was very influential, educating Canadian's with Peruvian culture and history.

  • Delete - Possibly vanity, but definitely non-notable. Aecis 18:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 20:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable. BCRCornet 22:44, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 04:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Khoonda

Appears to be complete gibberish - delete ChrisUK 09:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Much as it pains me, it appears to be something to do with Star Wars. Send to WP:Cleanup Cutler 09:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable KOTOR II plot point.
  • Delete If its not furries, its star wars. This minor goo isn't just cruft, it's the dried leftovers from a fanboy circle jerk. SchmuckyTheCat 02:26, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

Chilipino

Dicdef, if not a neologism - see Chilipina Cutler 09:33, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neologism. Pburka 16:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --Idont Havaname 04:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This term gets about 1200 Google hits. Could it be merged into list of terms for multiraciality? If possible, i.e. if anyone notable is Chinese and Filipino, then this could become its own article. (Most of the terms in list of terms for multiraciality do have their own article.) If we make Chilipino its own, valid article, then Chilipina should redirect there, since Filipina is the feminine equivalent of Filipino (and Filipina redirects to Filipino). --Idont Havaname 04:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Most of the Google hits (at leasts on the first few pages) seem to be usernames, not actual uses of the term. Therefore, I'd vote Delete. Monicasdude 15:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the list of terms for multiraciality. --eleuthero 29 June 2005 05:42 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 01:16 (UTC)

Stark Commercial Combine

Doesn't warrant a whole page - put content into a star wars page ChrisUK 09:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 20:42 (UTC)

Naresh verlander

Title is incorrect. Proper noun should have both first and last name capitalised. New article is posted correctly, this one should be deleted. 193.61.200.140 10:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - the above would be a case only for a redirect but in fact this is a vanity page of a non-notable photographer. Only 15 Google hits [3], most of which are the same sort of self-promotion as this. Cutler 10:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 20yo photographer of rock bands. His work looks good, but hardly encyclopedic. Andrewa 11:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 04:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_25&oldid=15801188"