This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep the article but delete the original versions from the database since they are copyvios. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
down the road this guy might very well be notable, but for now delete Babajobu 23:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable/unverifiable-- BMIComp (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned (Scottish)1 for the first debate]] Was marginal consensus to redirect to Chav the last time, but editors don't want to respect that and insist on keeping the article. It is an identical term to Chav, merely scottish, and it seems that some Scottish patriots are insisting on a separate article even though it is identical in meaning to chav, SqueakBox 17:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
If the issue is to decide between keep and merge the article shouldn't be discussed here. Speedy keep this, Pilatus 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
(erm, what about Wales and N. Ireland then? Just arrogance ignoring them really, isn't it?)
Wales and NI don't have their own versions of Chav, SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't agree. You have reverted in defiancce of a Vfd and now you are claiming we cannot put another vfd on it, SqueakBox 17:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
And I have no problem not making it a redirect but just merging relevant material and deleting. I am not arguing that scally should get the same treatment because Ireland is a separate country. We have already deleted Charver and Charva on the basis that they are other words for Chav, and it should be the same for Ned, SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The discussion on whether or not to merge is not a linguistic one, as several editors above have erroneously painted it, but a sociological one. We don't have separate articles where the titles are merely synonyms for the same person/place/concept/event; nor do we have separate articles where it is simply the case that different countries have different words for the same things. (Witness gasoline/ petrol, squash/ marrow, and so forth.) This is an encyclopaedia, with one article per concept, not a dictionary with one article per word. The important question to answer is not about the words at all, but is whether the two concepts are in fact the same. That's (a) a discussion that belongs on the talk pages not here (since merger of duplicate articles doesn't involve deleting anything) and (b) a question that can only be answered properly by citing sources on the subjects of these concepts.
Unfortunately, citing sources is exactly what is almost never done in chav, charva, townie, bogan, gogan, westies, feral, and their ilk. The articles are perennial original research magnets. (Witness as an example the edit wars over what vehicles certain stereotypes own and drive, and the lack of cited sources on all sides of those disagreements.) These discussions have been, too, with editors using "I am English", "I am from Newcastle", "Xe is not Scottish", and so forth as the sole bases for their arguments — bald assertions that that add no weight at all to the arguments that they supposedly support. I encourage both editors who assert that neds and chavs are the same and editors who assert that neds and chavs are different, to cite sources. Uncle G 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Actually I followed the strong suggestion to merge and redirect, and got reverted, which is why we are here. So I did it for the rather obvious reason that that is what was suggetsed in th elast Vfd. Your comment aqbout my overturning the decision is false and makes no sense. I enacted the decision, not overturned it. Or are you suggesting that merging with and redirecting to chav was not a "strong suggestion to merge and redirect." SqueakBox 14:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
>>We have already deleted Charver and Charva on the basis that they are other words for Chav, and it should be the same for Ned,<<= BS. Charva is totally different, I suppose in southner terms it is a mixture of a chav and a hoodie (though it does mean more then this). They are certainly not 100% chavs. Charvas also predate chavs by a decade or over, you have only started hearing about chavs this century but charvas have been a common part of the NE for as long as I can remember. >>Charver and chavra are obviously derivatives of chav and do not deserve separate entries. The same cannot be said of ned, which is of completely different origin. -<< Again total rubbish. Chav is the derivative of charva, chav is a more mainstream, non-criminal popularization of charva culture with far heavier american aspects mixed in. Just as Scotland has its own culture north east England also has its own culture equally distinct from that of the south. The petrol argument doesn't work. It could apply if we were talking about western petrol and that totally different stuff they used to have in eastern Europe though for petrol/gasaline, two words for the same thing. Definatly not.-Josquius
Ding, ding. Time up gentlemen please, drink up now. This discussion has surely run its course. Can some well balanced admin please do the necessary closing up procedure in accordance with the voting. Thank you. -- Cactus.man ✍ 20:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 06:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable vanity stub Babajobu 00:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
At first I thought this article just needed severe NPOVing to correct rampant POVisms like "The eminent neuroscientist ... rejecting the simpleminded 'chemical imbalance' theories used by drug companies in marketing their products" and "biochemical theories are an entirely "unproven hypothesis" - and probably a false one - used to excuse the often unconscionable marketing practices of the drug industry". Then I thought to Google, and this "eminent neuroscientist" gets just 138 hits that don't loop back to Wikipedia. Delete seems more appropriate. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. freestylefrappe 00:45, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
This page has essentially the same info as Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia. Delete freestylefrappe 01:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 06:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef neologisms. I see no potential for expansion. They are already at Wiktionary. Delete. -- Dmcdevit· t 01:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was revert back to the redirect to Thoughtcrime. I will let the page history stay, so if anyone thinks there is anything in the article worth merging with that article, just take a look at the page history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Let me state first off that certainly a legitimate, well-cited, balanced and NPOV article could be written on "Thought police". In fact, it was. Then it was
merged and redirected to
Thoughtcrime. After it had already been merged and redirected for about eight months, someone turned it into a separate article again and
rewrote the content to reflect who he believes the modern "thought police" are. This is a POV fork, and it should be deleted without merging. --
Antaeus Feldspar 02:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Per the good point brought up by Christopher below, changing my vote to restore the redirect without saving the forked content. --
Antaeus Feldspar 02:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
reply
Just make it back into a redirect. Grace Note 03:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 17:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a free webhosting provider. This page proposes an entire wikigames-subproject. It's bad enough that we tolerate these things in the sandbox. Games can be played on http://games.wikicities.com/ which has specific wikigame-extensions; even if such a project was actually to be proposed as part of Wikimedia (whose mission is to distribute free knowledge and which is funded by donations given by people who expect that we use their money as such), it would belong on m:Proposals for new projects, not in the Wikipedia: namespace of the English Wikipedia. Note that there's also an edit war on this page with SDSUPinoy preferring this version. The page also nicely demonstrates the problem with wikigames; it was created by a user who has been doing nothing but playing and creating them, not ever contributing to the actual encyclopedia. It is often alleged that games on Wikipedia reduce wikistress. Given the record so far, I have doubts about that. -- Eloquence * 02:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 06:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page about an electrical engineer who also plays musical instrument. Userfy or delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Please note however that I have counted the anonymous vote, because I see no evidence of it being cast in bad faith. Nonetheless, there is clearly a rough consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Artist vanity, I don't think that CSD past to here's the VFD =(. Delete, no evidence of notability, no allmusic.com or artistsdirect.com entry. Sasquatch′↔ Talk↔ Contributions 02:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 06:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable vanity. delete. Alynna 02:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Less than 300 Google hits, no Alexa ranking. Sounds like vanity to me. Denni ☯ 03:03, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:WINAD. This is a dicdef that has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. Dmcdevit· t 03:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit· t 07:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Band vanity. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
A ban on the internet is pretty much what it is elsewhere. This looks like a dicdef. Gazpacho 03:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 02:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Marked {{move to wikibooks}} by its only nontrivial editor, and I agree that it would fit in better there. I have already performed the transwiki. — Cryptic (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete (copyvio as well). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
"range of services", "our area"—This is a vanity/advert. The population of the United Kingdom is approx. 60 million. Gazpacho 03:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Musical artist, only album is a self-release. Gazpacho 03:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable bamboo artist. Gazpacho 03:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Capitalistroadster 11:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash 01:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
nazi-page -- 141.53.194.251 07:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nazism isn't cool]] 3 July 2005 09:48 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Notability not established, appears to be vanity. -- Alan Au 04:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Useless, too cluttered, and nonsense. User:Pakaran didn't even make this page; it was made by an anon. I say delete! - 68.72.128.19 04:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article didn't give enough information for sorting its stub. It also was deleted in November 2004. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 04:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed lame deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local 'underground street fighter'. "Kimbo slice" gets 219 displayed hits but almost all are forums and link farms EG, most of which have it in the keywords, but not in the visible content. Niteowlneils 04:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism / inaccurate agitprop. MEChA as an organization does not seek what the article claims, even though it has members who believe that it should. See [6] Gazpacho 04:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus (split between keep and merge), so default to keep -- Allen3 talk 11:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
This is an article about a fictional planet in a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein. I don't think it's notable in any way. Bcrowell 04:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Notability not established, appears to be vanity. I'm tempted to speedy this as patent nonsense. -- Alan Au 05:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Reads like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. -- Mysidia 05:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 02:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity page. Rhobite 05:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a vanity page about my uncle. However, neither he nor I wrote it. I found this on accident and he had no idea as to its existence. There is also inaccurate information the article. For example, he didn't co-found those magazines. And neither is he married as the article states at the end. He isn't that well-known Chris 05:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy per Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. mikka (t) 23:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
A vanity article about a high schooler. Tobycat 06:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy per Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. mikka (t) 23:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Improperly spaced. Notability not claimed. No inbound links. Wikipedia ≠ geneology site. a clear and present vanity TM — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 06:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Fork of Persecution of non-Muslims to avoid get around VFD of that article. Author of the article is pushing an anti-Islam POV on numerous articles. ~~~~ 07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC) User:-Ril- reply
This article is neutral, as manifested by the lack of POV complaints. -- Germen is not the only contributor to this article. When persecution of muslims is a legitimate article, why Religious persecution by muslims is not? Note that no objective reasons have been stated to delete this article. All attempts seem to focus on my supposed bad faith. -- Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Update: I have added a discussion [7]. -- Germen 13:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Update: This VfD seems to be an attempt to support the RfC [8] complaint against me: one of the charges which are levelled against me is the "spurious" creation of articles. Note that it is not Wikipedia policy to forbid the creation of articles and that this article describes a real-world and proven phenomenon. Note that the ones who sponsor the VfD (like Ril and Axon) support a delete vote just for one reason: the supposed bad-faith of undersigned. The propable reason is my supposed anti-islam bias. -- Germen 08:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
-- Irishpunktom\ talk 10:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
21:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep the revised version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Accuracy and validaity of claim is disputed (see original talk page.) Not enough evidence to justify speedy. Manning 08:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is about an untitled piece of music that is not widely known as "Big Ideas", even to the band who performs it. 69.34.210.49 08:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 02:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anderhage Incentive. A secret society, so secret that all the google hits refer to Wikipedia or mirrors. Unverifiable, probably hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I started working on this page to remove the heavy POV, but after searching came to the conclusion that the subject is just not very notable. The page itself is a vanity page that reads like it was copied from his personal press. But, the situation is just unclear enough to qualify for VfD instead of speedy delete. Delete as not sufficiently notable. -- Diderot 09:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy per Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. mikka (t) 23:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic tone, Google suggest non-notability. Mysid (talk) 10:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
It fails google test for significance (or even existence), original site is dead, not enough info for an article, non-verifible. akaDruid 10:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable made-up nonsense. - Nat Kraus e 10:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, so merge with University of Maryland Baltimore County. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Marked for speedy deletion but I moved it over here to VFD so I can get a second opinion on whether these drainage tunnels are actually notable, should be moved to BJAODN, or deleted completely (sorry, it's very late where I am right now). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, so merge with University of Maryland Baltimore County. Since a knoll is not a building, it will need another section, I'll see what I caqn do. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Marked for speedy deletion but I moved it over here to VFD so I can get a second opinion on whether this grassy knoll is actually a notable landmark, should be moved to BJAODN, or deleted completely (sorry, it's very late where I am right now). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy per Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. mikka (t) 23:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Marked for speedy deletion for vanity, but under the new policy to deal with vanity articles I am posting it here on VFD for a second opinion. The article claims that she is an actress and "has created quite a following in the vagina monologues". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Incoherent and context-free article about what I assume is a non-notable university computing centre. Delete. jni 11:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Original research. smoddy 11:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_theory
It seems that the main reason for deleting the Moving Dimensions Theory entry has nothing to do with the scientific integrity of the theory, but only with the notion that it has not yet been accepted by the postmodern science community which prefers mythologies such as String Theory--a theory that lacks postulates, laws, and experimentally-verified equations.
MDT is brand new. It is an original theory. Laughter and vilification are to be expected, along with ad-hominen attacks.
MDT is being submitted to journals. But that could take years for publication.
MDT will open new opportunities for young physicists with its simple postulate: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.
It should be noted that Albert Einstein said, "The mere formulation of a problem is far more often essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science."
Thus MDT offers an important advance.
Moving Dimensions Theory is an affront to postmodern sensibilities because it asks big questions--questions which have long ago been abandonded by the regimented, bureaucratized academy, which is funded not by innovation but by conformity. Moving Dimensions Theory provides a simple postulate that answers the following questions: Why is the speed of light constant in all frames? Why are light and energy quantized? How can matter display both wave and particle properties? Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics? Why does time stop at the speed of light? How come a photon does not age? Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing? Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction? Why are mass and energy equivalent? Why does time’s arrow point in the direction it points in? Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts traveling at the velocity c? Why is there a minus sign in the following metric? x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2 What deeper reality underlies Einstein’s postulates of relativity? What deeper reality underlies Newton’s laws? What underlies the laws of Inertia? Why entropy? What is the geometry of motion--the prime mover of all motion? Why have Einstein, Godel, Wheller, Penrose, Hawking, and Barbour all stated that we need a new approach to time, and what might that approach be?
"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." --Albert Einstein
Dr. Elliot McGucken is a trained physicist who has won several awards, both for research and teaching. He studied with John Archibald Wheeler at Princeton University where he graduated cum laude. He went on to receive a Ph.D. in physics. But Moving Dimensions Theory does not need Dr. McGucken--it stands on its own two feet, upon the shoulders of giants, bolstered by logic, reason, and physics.
If anyone wishes to argue against Moving Dimensions Theory with ad-hominem attacks, neither Dr. McGucken nor Moving Dimensions Theory will take it personally. But the theory is real physics--not pseudo physics nor "crank physics." It is new, but that does not make it wrong. If you refute it, or argue against it, do it with logic and reason, not with angst, vituperation, slander, ad-homimen attacks, name-calling, nor hearsay. Please--we must always maintain the highest level of cordiality and respect for fellow scientists and philosophers, so as to foster the advancement of knowledge.
"And if everybody says that you are wrong, then you are one step ahead. But there is one situation which is better still, when everyone begins to laugh about you, then you know you are two steps ahead." --Albert Szent-Gyorgi--Winner of the Nobel Prize
The fate of Moving Dimensions Theory is in the hands of the jury. The jury sentenced Socrates to death and abandoned Jesus to the cross.
But the ideas of both, based in logic and reason, withstood the test of time, and both are enshrined in the Princeton Chapel in stained glass--the chapel Einstein walked by every day on his way to Palmer Hall--the Princeton that accepted him and his theories when they were reviled, impugned, and denied by professors in Germany--the Germany that was back then considered to be the world's leader of scientific innovation. Einstein was called a crank and worse.
Though at first rejected, castigated, and impugned, the Truth has a way of winning over time.
So shall it be with Moving Dimensions Theory.
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out." --Max Planck
Actually no scientific theory can ever be proven.
Moving Dimensions Theory is a new theory. The general rules of wikipedia are appreciated, and this discussion demonstrates how thoroughly revolutionary MDT is. May it serve as one more record.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. ~100 google hits-- BMIComp (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 15:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Orphan article with no significant content. The title appears to be a mis-spelling of VSELP, which already has an article. Reccomend delete or merge with VSELP.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy per Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. mikka (t) 23:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
No mention of noteworthiness, no links, and the web provides no coverage that I've been able to find. Delete as non-noteworthy. -- Diderot 12:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit· t 23:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I want this to be a speedy, but it isn't. I'm not quite sure exactly what it is, but it certainly doesn't seem encyclopedic. smoddy 13:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to Magnetic levitation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Original resaerch. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- RHaworth 13:01, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete, Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Probably not notable. Has not release their first record. 29 google hits. Thue | talk 13:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). For those interested in the vote count I find 17 delete votes and 15 or 16 keep votes depending on whether or not the anonymous vote near the start of the debate is counted. Otherwise moving this page to some other title has been suggested, such discussions should go on the article's talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
First note that there is a previous VfD from July 2004 which didn't reach consensus.
This new VfD is for an unrelated reason, as I judge the List of purported cults to be original research and as such violating the WP:NOR. This list tries to avoid the POV problems and endless struggles which would plague a " List of cults" (but accept a redirect from there). Only the solution found by the authors of List of purported cults has a massive Original Research problem. The authors are doing their own research which of the zillions of possible sources in mass media are ignored, or put in one three categories of varying degrees of consensus. To make matters worse the authors are also attempting own research, which word in languages other than English should be considered equivalent to "cult". (Unfortunately they ignore the question of the different meanings of "cult" itself, but this is not central to VfD).
Pjacobi 13:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I'm somewhat disappointed, that a lot of fellow editors voting here, seem not to have read the reason for deletion at the very top (and instead start quarreling about POV). If the question which media and government labels which organization a cult (in which meaning of the word "cult", preferably) is an area of active research on scholarly base, and results of this research can be quoted, then there would be no problem with putting up a list. But in the case to be decided here, the article contributors decided to take the research in their own hands. That's the problem. -- Pjacobi 16:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete There is nothing useful in this article which is based on an arbitrary definition applied in a speculative manner.-- Fahrenheit451 22:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep However badly written designed (a problem which can be corrected), this page is still vital because of the nature of the topic. Sweetfreek 23:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article will never be more than an exercise in namecalling, or a survey of namecalling. Do we have a List of purported cads? Why not? That's why we shouldn't have this article, either. -- goethean ॐ 14:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment: I have been observing this discussion from the sidelines, and what I see is that editors are missing the fact that this is a political ethical, and deeply personal discussion, not a POV vs. NPOV, blacklisting/namecalling, original researrch or the like. This is all about the politics of the countercult/anti-cult (a very unlikely coalition of new leftists, evangelical Christian fundamentalists, and skeptics) vs. the politics of the moderate religious, the academia, and some open minded libertarians, are at the core. These politics are unlikely to disappear precisely because of the political act's ability to polarize issues, to disguise aspects of those issues which do not serve the various poles or positions. A huge amount of intellectual energy has been spent on defining (or more correctly, attempting to define) the word "cult". This discussion being yet another one in that cacophony of voices, is not unique or any different. Then, of course, there are the no less powerful arguments fueled by a deep personal agenda: apostates vs. new religions, rightist vs. leftists, and the wide gamut of strong opinions stirring the pot of any discussion about beliefs, God, human nature, freedom, liberty, and human rights. If one is to judge the related articles on mind control, brainwashing, cults, cult apologists, and the like, one will find the same political divide as in this discussion, and the same editors at each side of the battlefield. It will be interesting to see if Wikipedia and its NPOV policy can move from utopia to reality: Accepting the politics involved will be a honest first step. The outcome of debates like this one, and the dismissal or acceptance of articles like this one into the Wikipedia fold, will undoubtedly shape the future and relevance of this encyclopedia. -- 38.119.107.70 03:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep. This is an encyclopedic topic of general interest. The article may have to be renamed and/or reworded, but that is beside the point. Fact is, the word "cult" gets used (not by us, but demonstrably by others), and the question of who uses it to describe which organizations is inherently interesting. One may think that the article title is POV, but that only warrants a call for improvement, not deletion. There are many articles with seemingly POV titles (e.g. list of countries that are considered the greatest) and neutral, factual contents. This particular list clearly strives for accuracy and includes relevant disclaimers as well as a definition of its scope. That's more than can be said about other lists on controversial topics. -- MarkSweep 19:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was send this off to BJAODN. Take a look here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-Encyclopedic — Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 13:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The stupidest thing ever written for Wikipedia? Probably not, but, Christ, what are people thinking? I guess we know where alot of our bad articles are coming from, anyway. - R. fiend 14:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. POV.
Edit. Add: So-called "rivalries" are mainly for the fans. MLB players are usually professional enough to keep their cool and just play the game, while the fans can get out of hand. There are no "official" listings of MLB rivalries. Some of the "rivalries" listed in that "article" are not even in the same division or league. The rivalries are from a fan's point of view. Much of the "rivalries" posted in Wikipedia were made by an anonymous user. The following articles dumped the rivals section that were once part of the articles:
Rivals Discussion on New York Yankees Talk Page
Rivals Discussion on Boston Red Sox Talk Page
Rivals Discussion on St. Louis Cardinals Talk Page
To further point out POV, users on the
Toronto Blue Jays Talk Page and
Chicago White Sox Talk Page question the rivalries.
Another user on the
Tampa Bay Devil Rays Talk Page points out that one of the listed "rivalries" is "junk."
Win777 14:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
reply
Move and Cleanup to Major League Baseball Rivalries. Clean-up should consist of removing redlinks from the list, or at least removing all the minor rivalries (Braves-Nationals isn't on the level of Yankees-Red Sox, or even Braves-Mets) and adding several paragraphs of text explaining and analyzing MLB rivalries in general terms - things like whether they originate with the players or the fans, the role of the media in drumming them up, etc. The Literate Engineer 09:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Probable hoax, as far as I know not a real Warhammer 40,000 character. Most likely an attack on a fellow gamer. the wub "?/!" 15:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
A character developed for a League, posted for a back story. this Character does indeed exist, though not in any "Codex". Not a hoax, an Element of a league that doesn't affect the Global Rules.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Perpetual stub about a single song (as information about it is covered on the movie page). As it stands is only an opinion and some of the most obscure trivia one could ever dream of. Created by user with habit of creating stubs for the purpose of listing useless trivia (as is on the page now), then flooding creating a flood of incoming links. -- InShaneee 15:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Was marked speedy, though not a true candidate. Vanity Band page, non-notable, no google hits Gblaz 15:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Transwiki and delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-- BMIComp (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete (only 1 valid keep vote) -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Smells like an advertisement to me! 841 google hits, and apparently there's also a Pokemon with this name, and a good portion of the pages are in another language which i cannot read. -- Phroziac ( talk) 16:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough. Dead end article.-- BMIComp (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troop_26%2C_Tulsa%2C_OK
It is now under review for deletion. Oops, guess I got them in trouble. (sorry Troop 26!)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough, dead end article-- BMIComp (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Insignificant skinhead/neo-Nazi website. 57,000th on Alexa. [37] "Skinheadz" gets fewer than 1k Google hits, many for unrelated uses. Their forum is very quiet [just 1600 posts to tbe busiest since 2003, none have had any traffic in weeks]. The history is unsourced, not verifiable, and potentially imaginative. Willmcw 16:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
There was never a revolutionary under the name of Dmitri Nechayev. The author probably meant Sergey Nechayev, and there is already a big article about this person. They shouldn't be merged, because the first article lacks detail and represents a brief summary of this revolutionary's life. KNewman 16:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Two Tall
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 02:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
References a very obscure, non-notable machine that apparently appeared in one unidentified episode of Thunderbirds (TV series). There is a merge suggestion notice in the article but IMO the article is on a subject too obscure to even warrant merging. 23skidoo 16:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was It has already been recreated with different, and legitimate content. I am therefore closing the debate, and no action need be taken. - Splash 01:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Sandbox-like content. User probably didn't know that there is a place to test edits.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE (It's actually gone to BJAODN)
A scrupulously neutral article that seems to be about somebody's backyard. DJ Clayworth 17:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Spam spam spam spam spam. Wonderful spam! Sorry. Woohookitty 06:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Spam. Uppland 18:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted. – AB C D ✉ 18:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable advertising Gblaz 18:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB C D ✉ 18:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity Grpunkim 18:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete -- Allen3 talk 11:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity Improv 18:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 14:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
WP:WINAD. This is just a dicdef of an acronym. As such, it has no potential for growth and should be deleted. -- Dmcdevit· t 18:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
It has no information that is not provided in the Extreme Dodgeball page, no background information, in all a totally useless page. Completely unorganized, and it just lists the members of the team. Matjlav 18:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted. – AB C D ✉ 18:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Spam Grpunkim 18:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
"Visiting instructor" and postdoctoral student (albeit Ivy League). No publications or achievements. The biography contains original research, apparently written by an appreciative student of his. This subject is currently much less notable than the average full professor.
Willmcw 18:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit· t 23:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
This article is ridiculous, completely unencyclodpedic, and poorly written. However, there could possibly be some way to illustrate the discontent amongst Star Wars fans with this character. -- Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Icelight 19:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Does not quite meet WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. While they have released two albums, neither of these were on "a major label or one of the more important indie labels." If they should happen to break out, the article can be re-created at a later date, and only one sentence will be lost. Icelight 18:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company/advertising Gblaz 19:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted. – AB C D ✉ 18:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This smacks of being a breakaway group, not part of mainstream masonry. -- RHaworth 19:18, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Does not seem to meet standards set in WP:MUSIC either.-- BMIComp (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. -- Ngb 19:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising, spam, press release 66.216.68.28 20:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Please kill this page, it is in violation of [38].(nominated by 144.118.196.165 whose only edit is this vote.)
Do Not Delete. Not promotional.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Band vanity. Will record the first album any day now. Joyous (talk) 20:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete: based on Wikipedia:No original research. -- Durin 20:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity page, non-wikified, incorrect title, personal resume Vamp: Willow 20:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
I think this page should be deleted because it has, nor will ever have any prominent use. It's simply a page linking to sites where you can find out more and shop for ways to tour the Caribbean. Enclyopedias are not vacation planners nor advertising sites (for the sites that are being linked to. I see no way this could be expaned either, not to mention that the title is grammatically incorrect. alfrin 20:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Pure advertising, all from material found on the company's site. Several Times 20:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge into Diablo II and redirect -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
gamecruft Kertrats 20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. - Splash 01:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
speedied Fawcett5 03:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC) vanity Bayyoc 20:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This was not put in the log by the original nominator. -- Dmcdevit· t 21:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit· t 07:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Not a Juventus player, just a fool! (I have even looked for him, but he does not appear anywhere in association with the team) Angelo.romano 21:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP: 5k, 1d, 1m. I will tag it as a stub. - Splash 01:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
dicdef, not encyclopedic Bayyoc 21:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang guide, as official policy in WP:WIN states. drini ☎ 21:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
vanity, poor writing skills, and evidence of mental deficiency Bayyoc 21:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Uh, nonsense, right? jengod 21:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete under a combination of criteria G7 and U3, with a smattering of G2 thrown in for good measure. The original anonymous author tagged the page with {{test}} (G2) and then nominated it for deletion (G7). Apart from a well-intentioned removal of the tags, all subsequent edits were from another anonymous author with a related IP address tagging the page further. There are no messages or history here worth keeping, and what messages are here don't appear to be relevant to 204.96.191.50 ( talk · contribs) (U3). Uncle G 02:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete (no valid keep votes) -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I tried multiple variant spellings, but Google turned up nothing. Hoax? DS 21:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply
The above is that user's first edit...and I find myself in total agreement. Let's end this ASAP. "Fudge-packing" and "pedophilia" scream that this is an attack page. - Lucky 6.9 20:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
For DELETION: 11
Against DELETION: 1
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete by request from the creator. Thue | talk 21:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Blanked vanity -- PhilipO 21:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Not an encyclopædia entry, just points to a website (it's supposed to be about radio programmes). Orphaned. Not worth merging IMO, there's more info already on BBC Radio 4 and its list of programming. Joe D (t) 21:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Merge into BBC Radio 4 - The Time Killer
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism. 90 google, 0 google news.-- BMIComp (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is a vanity page written by one livejournal user for another, as evidenced by reading this blog posting about it. I could easily write myself up as equally sensitive and ambitious. Alterego 22:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism for new philosophy. Google brings up only 19 unique hits for it, none of them including the names of the philosophers who supposedly inspired it. [40]. Willmcw 22:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC) PS The article on Nathan Braun, an activist/writer/philosopher/theologian/ethicist in his mid-20s, was written by the same editor. It says, "He founded memethics, the art and science of analyzing ethical and moral ideas, though it is not an academically-regonized discipline." [sic] If even the editor/subject(?) admits that it is un-"regonized", who are we to change that? - Willmcw 23:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There is nothing notable or exceptionable about someone inventing a word. The topic itself goes back to Plato. KSchutte 02:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
suggest not delete, but limit access to the page. the field will eventually spawn something. might as well keep it in to allow for documentation of the fields growth. (this writer suggest memethics could encompass fields such as racism and other "isms"/humor/hate/love/anthropology/social dynamics/information exchange/...ect)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy; either hoax or Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. mikka (t) 23:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
No relevant Google hits. 2600 children? I smell a hoax. smoddy 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef, and POV-inherent. smoddy 22:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
del as wrong usage of the technical page. Merge the text wherever suitable. This is no way a disambig page, by the definition of the notion: wikipedia:disambiguation. The closest possible destination is the section Socialism#Branches of socialism. mikka (t) 22:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Dmcdevit· t 07:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Non-existent term; basically nonsense. On 2005-06-12 01:26:36 Fawcett5 stopped it being a speedy with Doesn't fit the definition of patent nonense... she may be right; but its close. The term doesn't really exist (google seems to hit only web design). The scientific content is nonsense (loss of ozone is a net negative radiative forcing and would lead to cooling not warming). William M. Connolley 22:57:16, 2005-07-20 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit· t 23:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
8 hits in google, looks like a prank. Also the images if VfD:d Feydey 22:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
I have merged United Monarchy with Kingdom of Israel, making the former obsolete - Nik42 05:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I think it's a bad move. If anything, the United Monarchy is the logical precursor to the Kingdom of Judah since Solomon's son ruled Judah and the capital was maintained as Jerusalem. Still, I think the United Monarchy needs its own article and should not be merged. User:Cypherx 12:51pm, 6 June 2005
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP: 7k, 2d. - Splash 02:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Less notable, not encyclopedic yet. Results 1 - 10 of about 17 for "lee farnworth" Algonquin College. (0.34 seconds). There were around 250 for "lee farnworth", but a good portion were not the same person. -- Phroziac ( talk) 23:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP, even if I discard redusers. - Splash 02:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep it! cuz the quality of this article is OK, so don't remove it. User : Titanz 19:33, 23/07/2005 GMT+7
Keep it I don't see any problem with this article. L-Zwei 18:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 02:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. No votes discounted, since pseudosigned user has been around a while, made a few edits and has focussed strongly on Tolkien-related things. - Splash 02:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fancruft Project2501a 23:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why delete? The content is accurate .. J.R.R Tolkiens fiction has generated world-wide interest for decades: this entry is giving more detail on part of that fiction.
No Delete. Herumor Stormraven
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to USS Liberty incident -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
keep it (unsigned vote, possibly by 70.104.132.28 considering this is his/her only contribution and it was done so anonymously) ETA: Yup, definitely was that IP address. Thorns Among Our Leaves 01:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete it! The attack on USS Liberty deserves an article which it has got (
USS Liberty incident), but right now it's this is only a collection of quotes. Really, really substandard and redundant.--
itpastorn 20:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
reply
Delete it. Clearly partisan as well as redundant. Bozoid 21:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete or Redirect. Why does wikipedia need to have case sensitive titles? What is gained by this? jucifer 06:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was deleted. – AB C D ✉ 18:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This is just lifted from Redcliffe College Site, possibly with their approval. As such it is an article about Redcliffe College, but not with NPOV. (preceding unsigned comment by 194.60.106.5 15:50, June 21, 2005 UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
wikipedia is not a rumour-mill, source must be shown Jamster 23:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. All keep votes are from very new users. CDC (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
An internet game website alexa ranked 445,076. It was created almost entirely by one IP and reads like advertising. Especially obvious is that the article incessantly links to the website at every mention of "Hamumu." Delete as advertising and non-notable. -- Dmcdevit· t 23:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete as one of the votes was conditional, and no indication has been provided on whether the new edit meets that condition -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement/vanity from a small web-design/marketing firm that IMO is not notable. Delete. -- Marcika 23:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete.
This article seems just to be some guy's ego page.