Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a
soft redirect.
The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD)
Crank rant, from the people who brought you Factual knowledge. It's nonexistence time for this article. -- Zarquon 00:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief Garrett Talk 06:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The article claims that atlasology is the science of atlases, but it isn't. It's a neologism. -- Zarquon 00:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - did just as Uncle G suggested.
when? and
where? redirected to
Five Ws,
what? kept and
Primary Questions and
Secondary Questions deleted -
SimonP 13:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
An essay on the question, when? Kelly Martin 01:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
*Delete all. -
MarSch 13:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 13:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Three reasons - first, I can find no evidence that the term 'slow glass' is commonly used in scientific literature as a name for BEC. The physics categorisation is therefore invalid. Secondly, the article is currently inaccurate. The concept of slow glass was specifically not that of a BEC - rather, it was a real piece of glass through which photons travelled by a spiral trajectory, increasing the distance they had to go. Thirdly, I don't think a device in a short story really needs an article of its own, especially when the entry for the short story itself is only a one-liner disambig.-- Fangz 21:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 13:18, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
An unidentified person mentioned as part of a list in a song which has no article of its own. Give it the elbow Grutness... wha? 01:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I know who it is and it should be deleted it was just afreind of the people of Le Tigre. She doesn't even know why she was put in the song.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 13:18, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity band page. Zero hits on google DoubleBlue ( Talk) 01:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by Bearcat (content was: '{{d}}Jacob Finke is the coolest boy to ever exist. He goes to Trinity Christian School, Williston, North Dakota. He is so cool. He has his own websit...'). Master Thief Garrett Talk 06:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 13:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
more Factual knowledge or nonsense for you to ponder -- Doc Glasgow 02:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus -
SimonP 13:33, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Does not pass the average professor test, vanity and/or self-promotion, only recieved his phd in 2004. Previously nominated for vfd but the discussion has gone strangely missing. All his pubs are conference proceedings, has not published in an academic journal-- nixie 02:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
{{cleanup-importance}}
tag nearly a month ago. Nick's a nice guy and a great lecturer, but he's still below the bar of notability for professors.
android↔
talk 03:12, May 15, 2005 (UTC)The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief Garrett Talk 06:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
NEW! Improved! From the makers of Factual knowledge and Atlasology! More junk included!-- Ganymead 02:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 13:35, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
High-school principals resume, cruft. Delete. -- nixie 02:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC) Delete. Vanity. Ganymead 02:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 13:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
An organization, and fictional works, by Kyle Emmerson, he of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kyle Emmerson and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eklypsin. Samaritan 02:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 13:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
More original research from Norhuc ( talk · contribs). Uncle G 03:04, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 13:39, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
More original research from Norhuc ( talk · contribs). Uncle G 03:04, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged -
SimonP 13:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Unnecessary advert for a college dorm and society. Other subpages created by anonymous users related to Walla Walla College are also up for VfD. Countless useless stubs should be discouraged. Harro5 03:06, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 13:41, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This is kind of a test case. Somebody has gone and created a separate article for every Canadian federal parliamentary district past and present. I'll concede that district information is noteworthy, but it makes no sense to create dozens of two-sentence articles to hold it. A subject can be important enough to be discussed in Wikidedia, but not big enough to deserve its own article.--- Isaac R 03:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Adam Bishop (content was: '{{del}}pen15 = penis'), undeleted by (?), redeleted by Rlquall (Deserved a speedy. Everyone on VfD voted for it to be deleted, even its author.). Master Thief Garrett Talk 06:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
A crude joke among teenagers referring to the male penis, as opposed to the female penis.... And labeled a stub, pending amplification -- though I'd have thought that the existing, laborious explanation would be more than sufficient for anyone who (i) is moderately good at English and (ii) has an IQ of 80 or above. I shouldn't have thought that each "crude joke among teenagers" would require its own article; anyway, as WP is not a dictionary, it surely doesn't need an item for each L337 spelling. DeL337. -- Hoary 03:31, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 13:44, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page has long ago been subsumed by the article to which it redirects, and no article links to it. - Centrx 21:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 13:45, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity article on a website moderator. Doesn't have any relevance or notability. Delete. Harro5 03:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 13:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
I doubt that this page is useful as an encyclopedia article in its present form. It might be better off folded into Product life cycle management. I see that the article has been created twice before, once as a copyvio and once as nonsense, so it's a recognised term.- gadfium 04:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 13:47, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism and highly POV article. Any legitimate material here should be folded into Persecution of Christians. Firebug 04:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 13:48, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable neologism and equally non-notable computer virus. Firebug 04:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 13:48, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable band, generates only 12 google hits. Chiacomo 04:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by (?), page does not appear in deletion log for some unknown reason (database error?). Master Thief Garrett Talk 06:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Er, what? I found this incomplete nomination in the list. Not sure what to do with it. R adiant _* 13:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC) Per the deletion log:
Possible hoax? Was placed on speedy as 'subject does not exist'. - Mailer Diablo 05:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 13:49, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
A whopping 45 Googles. Non-notable... but doesn't exactly fall under speedy rules. At least, I don't *think* so. Master Thief Garrett 05:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Deleted by Neutrality (Per VfD). Master Thief Garrett Talk 06:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Very odd page created by an anon about formalwear merchants. I am tempted to say it is patent nonsense. Delete- Lucky13pjn 05:37, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 13:50, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This article was previously deleted after a VfD vote. It was then undeleted via Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. The previous VfD listing is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maha Jana High School. It is now being relisted per undeletion policy. Please review the article as it is now and vote. — Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 13:52, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a vanity page; Delete. Emiao 06:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Adam Bishop (content was: '{{del}}pen15 = penis'). Undeleted by (?), re-speedy'd by Rlquall (Deserved a speedy. Everyone on VfD voted for it to be deleted, even its author.). Master Thief Garrett Talk 06:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is a ramble of misguided "original research" (based on misunderstandings of Hebrew words from the Hebrew Bible yet.) See Talk:Abif and especially Talk:Abif#Freemason agenda for a scholarly view as to why this article deserves deletion. IZAK 06:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 13:53, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This is not an encyclopedia article. Rick K 06:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 13:55, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This appears to be a small non-profit organization that is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Some evidence for this is:
With all of this, I nominate it for deletion. -- JamesTeterenko 07:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep it. By definition the purpose of an encyclopedia is to act as a reference book containing informational articles on subjects in every field of knowledge. iHUB appears to be a "neologistic concept " with noble and highly aimed goals. By its mission statement, the organization has the role of a hub and most importantly connecting all the people around the world. And therefore it definitely refers to everyone out there and what better place to be found at than among the content of an encyclopedia.-- Ununoctium 14:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
No web pages link their web site. - http://www.trentu.ca/news/daily/archive/050301mankindunited.html Mankind United was the first name of our organization.
No one has signed the guestbook on their web site - iHUB Forum Statistics: Threads: 111, Posts: 455, Members: 31
-- IHUB.org Founder 06:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC) reply
"Delete. A globally-focused organization with 31 registered members and not mentioned anywhere else on the web? It's a good idea, but they don't belong in Wikipedia until somebody outside their oganization notices them."
Thank you for supporting the vision of iHUB.
We realize that at this point we might not have enough credibility. But we are mentioned on Trent University Daily News Page. This is important, because we are acknowledged at Trent.
Further, I should mention that WikiPedia holds articles not only about organizations. For example take any existing word. “iHUB” was not mentioned anywhere in WikiPedia before.
WikiPedia is described by its founder Jimmy Wales as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." Our organization is not a fraud, but a grassroots effort, which sooner or later works and achieves its objectives. Therefore, it IS worthwhile mentioning in this great project. On YOUR decisions will depend how fast we will be able to spread our message across and make a change. -- IHUB.org Founder 06:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged -
SimonP 13:58, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Kind of hate to do this, but Mousse already exists and is more complete. This is simply Mousse with a specific flavor. Nominated for VFD by Vegaswikian
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:00, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
At best, this should go to Wikisource, but it's almost undoubtedly a copyvio. Rick K 07:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:00, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Ad for unnotable news website with an Alexa rank over 2 million. -- Grev -- Talk 07:33, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:00, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
We already have an article at Dionysus. Only one non-sentence of this article has anything to do with Michelangelo. Rick K 09:08, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:01, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This is blatant commercial promotion for NVIDIA. The graphics cards do deserve to be written up, but do we really need details on every pr demo ever created by NVIDIA? This user has created at least 4 pages dedicated to NVIDIA pr, and I'm calling in a deletion request, as it seems to me he is going to start putting every other NVIDIA press release into WIKI, unless this gets stopped. Which is absurd. See also Clear_Sailing, Nalu, for examples for NVIDIA pr being written up in WIKI by this user. Timharwoodx 09:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 14:04, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Topic already covered under Reality_distortion_field. Delete this duplicate entry. Timharwoodx 09:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by
Duncharris (patent nonsense, see vfd.) --
cesarb 23:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
"Paul Sahbaz" doesn't seem to actually exist (nor does "Cronicles of McGiviney" either spelled thusly or correctly). No hits outside Wiki-mirrors in Google; no pages link to it. Page consists of stream-of-consciousness drivel. The page has existed since Nov. 2004 and seems to be mainly a tool for anonymous "creative expression" rather than an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Nunh-huh 09:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by
Petaholmes (recreation of previously speedied material) --
cesarb 23:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
This person does exist, but the story is unverified, and also un-notable. The author says that this did happen in Canada, but there is not proof, and it is possibly a hoax. Google News has no reports on Smeeton. Harro5 10:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This article would appear to be a hoax. No-one named 'Apps' appears in the roll of the Knights Bachelor nor in recent honours lists. The photo link turns out to be to a gym/personal training business in California. No google hits for "Steven Apps" + Botany or under any permutation. The species of Monarda mentioned also draws a blank. Dbiv 10:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This is blatant commercial promotion for NVIDIA. The graphics cards do deserve to be written up, but do we really need details on every pr demo ever created by NVIDIA? This user has created at least 4 pages dedicated to NVIDIA pr, and I'm calling in a deletion request, as it seems to me he is going to start putting every other NVIDIA press release into WIKI, unless this gets stopped. Which is absurd. See also Clear_Sailing, Nalu, for examples for NVIDIA pr being written up in WIKI by this user. Timharwoodx 09:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This is blatant commercial promotion for NVIDIA. The graphics cards do deserve to be written up, but do we really need details on every pr demo ever created by NVIDIA? This user has created at least 4 pages dedicated to NVIDIA pr, and I'm calling in a deletion request, as it seems to me he is going to start putting every other NVIDIA press release into WIKI, unless this gets stopped. Which is absurd. See also Clear_Sailing, Nalu, for examples for NVIDIA pr being written up in WIKI by this user. Timharwoodx 09:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think that this passes the notability standard and as such is not encyclopedic. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 12:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 14:08, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Advert for some sort of "project management" software. Delete. SteveW | Talk 12:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus -
SimonP 14:11, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Non notable? Robinoke 12:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged -
SimonP 14:12, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
A more complete treatment already exists under "Fischer-Tropsch synthesis" (Unsigned comment left by Eric Kvaalen.)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:13, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
A website with an Alexa ranking of 3,850,864, wikispam -- nixie 14:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:13, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Former group of editors of a defunt website, not encyclopedic, delete -- nixie 14:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:14, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be nothing more than an advert. Orange Goblin 14:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Sorry I was lazy and just copyied what I put on my site (so yes I guess it was just an Add) I hope the revised version is ok. -- 213.122.66.217 14:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
The site is non-notable
Comment whatever, i never said anything about not letting them post...nothing is stopping them...
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by
Neutrality (content was: '{{vfd}}'''Penultimate frisbee''' was the short-lived precursor to ultimate frisbee.{{substub}}{{sport-stub}}Category:Sports[[Category:F...') --
cesarb 23:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Joke article. -- W( t) 16:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:33, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Game clan vanity. -- W( t) 16:17, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Neutrality ((content was: '{{db|no actual content}} Category:Economics Category:Socioeconomics Category:Social justice Category:Development[[Poverty|Low Income...'), recreated by author, speedy deleted by Neutrality [no edit summary]. Master Thief Garrett Talk 07:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Recreation of previously speedily deleted content. Per policy, moving to VfD on the grounds that perhaps the author will defend why this low-content article should remain. Kelly Martin 16:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - moved to user space -
SimonP 14:35, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Appears to have been created by the author, non-notable. Orange Goblin 16:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:37, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Advert. -- W( t) 16:47, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Orphan article that makes no sense. The entirety of the article is code demonstrating a simple use of memoization in C. -- Delirium 16:59, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, but needs much work. -
SimonP 14:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
"Delete this travesty "
Under current title the article has incurable problems with POV. The claim that all territories which were part of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the first half of the 20th century, but are not part of those countries now, are to be considered occupied territories is highly controversial to say the least. Balcer 17:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
But Estonia could not have lost territory to Russia because it was not a country that could lose any territory. Until Bolsheviks, it did not exist or existed merely as a geographical concept (no encyclopedia or any source define Estonia as a country until 1920s. Pre WWI Encyclopedia Britannica has no entry on this non-country country). The question of territorial loss or gain or of occupation or annexation is of irrelevance if other, fully legitimate viewpoints are to be considered.
In essence - the Estonian ethnocratic state claims that it is miraculous reincarnation of the ethnofascist dictatorship named Estonia or Estonian Republic between its recognition by Bolsheviks and the grant of independence by Gorbachev in 1991. Now only from this totally preposterous standpoint can one claim that Estonia (or Latvia) was occuppied or any territory gained. Even if the USA supported that claim during the Cold War for obvious political reasons the claim, the claim is fairly preposterous.
The current Russian Federation official view is that Estonia is a brand new entity that emerged from the Soviet Union - hence its borders are the borders of Estonian Soviet Republic. The case closed.
The third point (the one I adhere to) that the overthrow of Russian Republic by the Bolsheviks in 1917 was illegal (and the Russia's Council of State issued its last proclamation to that regard) and all treaties concerned border changes therefrom are illegal since the parties who signed them had no authority to do so. Hence Estonia or Latvia are illegitmate statelets, illegal today as they were 1920s. Those statelets could not have lost any territory since there was none to lose. Territory of Estonia is two Russian provinces or governments (Estland, Estlandia or Esthonia - http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Esthonia and the northern portion of Livlandia or Livonia - http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Livonia). The only treaty that can possibly govern Russia's relations with those provinces is that of the Treaty of Nystad in 1721. Occupation of Estonia and Latvia by the USSR is hence an annexation of own territory by less than legitimate entity. Unfortunately this viewpoint is not shared by the current Russian administration because they can't - they would have to carry out restitution inside Russia and de-privatize a humongous number of assets if they recognized the fact that 1991 was not a fresh beginning as they claim.
Only Keep. Very good article and very correct name of the article. As I see here, most demanding of "deletion" are polish nationalists which don't like the fact that pre-war Poland was extremely agressive dictatorship state, which occupied and opressed neighbour nations. The spirit of this fascist state still is alive today - demanding of deletions , blockings etcr of otherwise-minded users. Zivinbudas 09:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC) reply
I would like to add only, that legally The Lithuanian-Soviet Peace Treatment of July 12, 1920 (including part on border) still is in force. All followed treatmens appeal on this treatment. Our situation is absolutely the same like of Estonians and Latvians - they don't demand of returning of these territories, they only appeal to Peace Treatments with the Soviets of 1920. On other aspects I fully agree with DeirYassin. 85.206.194.118 21:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Messhermit, your statements on Klaipeda are completely false. Klaipeda region (Northern part of Lithuania Minor) was separated from Germany after WWI in 1919 by Treaty of Versailles and was designed to unite to Lithuania. Reunion was delayed because of polish intrigues. Lithuanians only pushed this process. It was recognized by Legue of Nations and by Germany in 1928 (German-Lithuanian Border Treatment). Zivinbudas 04:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Messhermit, your provided "memellanders'" webs are very impressive, especially first with piece of Nazi propaganda "Memel is Free!" Those "sources" are full of falsifications:
Statistic:
Year 1925 (2 years after reunion) ( Klaipeda city including) (in percent):
Lithuanians 50,7 Germans 45,2 Others 4,1 Total 100,0
Year 1932 ( Klaipeda city including) (in percent):
Lithuanians 58,5 Germans 38,2 Others 3,3 Total 100,0
Source: Rudolfas Valsonokas (Jewish author). Klaipėdos problema. Klaipėda, 1932.
My opinion on the article is this - it should include information on Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania - the eastern front of Operation Barbarossa from World War II, and it should discuss the territorial shifts in those four states in the aftermath of World War II. And that's that. It can be linked to a larger article on Operation Barbarossa, or Soviet Empire, or whatever. The information deserves discussion, but only within the larger context.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged -
SimonP 14:43, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Consists of nothing more than a list of articles that will most likely never be created, plus canon is spelt wrong. Orange Goblin 17:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:44, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
[ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Nemo-NY&btnG=Search 500 hits, but most don't seem related to band. Judging by name of user "Nemo-NY", this is obvious self promotion.
Lotsofissues 17:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:45, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Lotsofissues 17:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
vfd added by User: Samw, who did not create a subpage or give any explanation. Doesn't look notable though - possibly a vanity. Grutness... wha? 03:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:54, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
First off, it needs quite a bit of attention, and read so much like advertising copy that I slapped an NPOV on it. But that's not the point.
The concern is that, reading the history of the article, that it's being used for a "rapper's war" instead of an article. I can't find anything significant on "Lo'Down" or "LJ" (except for the name of another artist) or anything of the sort on the web...or, for that matter, anything in regards to a New Mexico rap scene. Comments like "growing up in a Christian home" and "was the 2005 champion at Mortal Kombat Domination" have no real bearing on the article. Also, there are a lot of quotes listed, and there's no article references of any kind.
I find it enough to remove the NPOV and attention tags and am sending it to Delete. -- Mitsukai 18:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 14:56, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
No doubt someone will know what this is about, but it's not me. Deb 19:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 14:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 19:54, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 14:59, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 16:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 15:01, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Three-sentence, two-line substub on an elementary school. Delete. Neutrality talk 19:58, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 15:03, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 20:02, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep DS1953 04:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 15:43, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
A private school of 350 students from kindergarten to grade seven. Non-notable, delete. Neutrality talk 20:04, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 15:44, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Entire content is "Anfield Community Comprehensive School is a secondary school in the Anfield_(district) area of Liverpool." Substub on non-notable subject; delete. Neutrality talk 20:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 15:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Despite its location in my birthplace, it's still non-notable. Delete. Neutrality talk 20:17, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 15:03, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable boarding school with less than 250 students. Delete. Neutrality talk 20:20, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 15:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Possibly notable but notability not yet established. Delete or show significance at the end of the five-day period. Neutrality talk
Keep. Definitely notable. DS1953 04:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn by nominator following the establishment of notability.. Thanks.
Non-notable, delete.
Neutrality
talk 20:27, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
NOMINATION WITHDRAWN.
Neutrality
talk 22:27, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Seems to have been made up on the spot. Orange Goblin 20:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:06, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Some sort of temporary version of the article Sayeret_Matkal, which contains the text on this page. -- Tabor 20:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Note: this temp article has not been updated in months -- Tabor 20:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
No potential to become encyclopedic, possible advertising or other spam
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged -
SimonP 15:08, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This article unnecessarily duplicates the existing article at Virashaivism. Propose that relevant content be merged into the existing Virashaiva article and then delete Imc 21:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete- I think this should be deleted.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged -
SimonP 15:09, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This article unnecessarily duplicates the existing article at Rashtriya_Swayam_Sevak_Sangh. Merge content into the existing article and delete. Imc 21:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:11, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Roundabout way to create a vanity band page, by defining the band's style as a neologism — Wahoofive ( talk) 22:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:13, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This is per its own defintion not different from rape.
The result of the debate was} Speedy Deleted by Inter (untrue article). Master Thief Garrett Talk 07:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC) reply
First, the article is untrue. Gunnaraasen is NOT a big mountain. Additionally, I think the place isn't notable enough to be mentioned. I think the page should be deleted. Gwydion1 22:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:12, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
POV original research near-nonsense. It was tagged 'speedy' - but removed by someone - and I'm not sure whether it justifies it (no-obection if someone thinks otherwise)-- Doc Glasgow 22:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
-What a crock. You are treating this site with so much disrespect, ironic considering how much Smallville TWoP boarders critisize the morality of characters. You cannot honestly justify this article serves any other purpose than to get a laugh. Just look at these quotes.
"If the Wikipedia people don't care to share and inform others about the growing danger of SFS, then fuck 'em. They'll be doing the world a disservice by not educating us about the health hazard that is Season Four."
"I think the Wikipedia people just wanna keep their cred as some sort of "legitimately educational" source. But really, how seriously will we ever take something that starts with "wiki?"
"Okay, if the person who posted the Wikipedia definition of SFS lurks in these forums, show yourself. YOU ARE A FUCKING GENIUS. I laughed for at least ten minutes after reading that."
"Some snobbish jackasses over there have taken issue with the biased nature of my research, asking for the entry to be deleted. I argue that, while I am somewhat biased, the condition of SFS is indeed real and documented, therefore the entry still keeps its core integrity, which is simply providing the nature, etiology, and symptoms of SFS. Hopefully the good people at Wikipedia will understand this."'
"Man, those people who post on the 'Pages for deletion' area are assholes."
"They don't even like, "Assclown." Who doesn't like, "Assclown?!" I just heard it on "O.C." last week!"'
Retrieved from " http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=2228538&st=1890"
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 CD 17:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC) reply
not the right place for this info. maybe wikinews... Delete. THE KING 12:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:17, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Small cafe that has no real notable figures attached — Mulad (talk) 23:06, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity, not encyclopedic -- Barfooz 23:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Not every web page and gaming community needs to be in the encyclopedia Terrace4 00:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 15:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Random attack by Jtdirl
Unfortunately, Jtdirl is intent on sabotaging any content on Wikipedia that doesn't promote a position he has on addressing the pope with a strongly pro-Catholic POV (including vandalism, WP:Point, personal attacks, VfD abuse, etc). He's also gotten to adding malicious {{VFD}} tag on a different page I created recently ( Academic and Journalistic Use of Honorifics). This particular page was created back on September 2004, long before the survey prompting Jtdirl. However, for reasons I can't quite discern, Jtdirl seems to believe I wrote the Honorific page, and therefore wants it VfD'd just out of spite. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:11, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:18, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Should be deleted along with an almost identical article by same author, Bitter scent: the case of L'Oréal, Nazis, and the Arab Boycott--neither makes a reasonable connection to its title, and the contents don't conform with google searches, as far as I can tell Terrace4 15:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable Terrace4 16:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected -
SimonP 15:30, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Nice article, but title spelled wrong, and author made an identical article under the appropriate title exponential smoothing. Normally, this would be moved to the appropriate title, not deleted, but since the author has already moved the content, this title should be deleted. Terrace4 16:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Should be deleted along with an almost identical article by same author, Genta--neither makes a reasonable connection to its title, and the contents don't conform with google searches, as far as I can tell Terrace4 15:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept -
SimonP 15:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Random attack by Jtdirl
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted -
SimonP 15:41, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable. The article says that "his work can be found in Google searches", but it's not so. Delete. -- Mwanner 01:11, May 16, 2005 (UTC)