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 Land 09:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem like it should have its own article. - 203.134.166.99 07:37, 23 September 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. -- fvw * 00:02, 23 September 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. Oleg Alexandrov 04:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. -- fvw * 00:02, 23 September 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. Oleg Alexandrov 04:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Only claim to notability is being in a band which I'm AfDing after this page. -- fvw * 00:02, 23 September 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 - default to keep (10 keep, 18 delete) Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Went through a AfD already, having a no consensus result. The article hasn't improved any, and in my opinion, continues to be worthless. I also feel that the previous AfD was too muddled by people's preset perceptions about Pokémon articles, fearing that cutting off one head would make it grow back a thousand-fold. Coolkat's accusations of sockpuppetry didn't help the matter any. With that in mind, I threw this back into AfD so we could reach a consensus, hopefully without wrongful impressions or accusations of sockpuppetry. Apostrophe 23:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete-Junk. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:16 Pm EST
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 Transwikified and left as redirect Marskell 13:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef — Wahoofive ( talk) 00:12, 23 September 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 - 4 keep/15 delete (78% to delete) Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
(UTC)
The result of the debate was delete all. Eugene van der Pijll 11:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hard Rain (Guinevere Jones episode), Psyched, That Old Black Magic (Guinevere Jones episode), Ordinary Evil, Weird Sisters (Guinevere Jones episode), Dybbukkin, First Date (Guinevere Jones episode), Warwe and Mineer, Love Hurts, The Dryad, Solo Act, Shadows (Guinevere Jones episode), Choices and Rebellion (Guinevere Jones episode) -- a series of substubs on episodes of a TV show, all of which are well-covered by the main article, Guinevere Jones. I realize many Saturday Night Live episodes have recently been kept, but Guinevere Jones has left no mark on popular culture and only ran for two seasons. Also see point five of WP:FICT. ♥purplefeltangel ( talk) ♥ ( Contributions) 00:43, 23 September 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 speedied. -- Phroziac ( talk) 00:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
One IRC channel out of hundreds of thousands? Wikipedia's not a free host or webspace provider. -- Mysidia ( talk) 00:55, 23 September 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. -- fvw * 01:00, 23 September 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This is schoolcruft at its max. I normally keep High School Articles but this one havent even opened yet and wont even open for another year at least. why write an article about a school that havent even open yet. Delete -- Aranda56 01:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
'Delete Just another school. Dudtz 9/29/05 5:45 PM EST
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Slashdot forum humor brought to WP. Not encyclopedic. feydey 01:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Slashdot forum humor brought to WP. Not encyclopedic. feydey 01:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Press release. -- fvw * 02:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 02:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article only exists to further the POV-pushing attempts of User:67.124.49.20, User:208.57.91.27, User:Johnski, and User:Samspade. It could be a redirect, but it keeps getting changed back. It should be deleted and protected against recreation for the time being. Jdavidb 02:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
In spite of the title of the article, this is a perfectly good dictdef. It is, however, still a dictdef. Jkelly 02:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was move to Wikipedia:Academic resources. Eugene van der Pijll 11:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This is not an organised list of academic resources, just a random list of stuff taken from a user page. The first edit comment was "Help me edit this, its a useful list that I saw from User:172" TreveX talk 02:35, 23 September 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. — JIP | Talk 05:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Nobility not established. Google search 1 2 comes up empty. Article smells like vanity. Hurricane111 02:34, 23 September 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. Oleg Alexandrov 04:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Vanity. Google search: [5] Barfooz (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, possible vanity article on an unknown Irani composer. Hits four non-Wikipedia related entries on Google [6], 3 of them from forums where he has posted ads, and his own personal webpage. Shauri 03:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Totally non notable webcomic, check out it's website here and its forums here. Sure, effort has been put into this, and it's been around for over 6 months, but just goto their website and flick through their forums and see how many people actually read it. There's so much dreck in the Wikipedia webcomics section, it's almost an advertising board. But even given the massively lax inclusion guidelines at Wikipedia:Web_comics, it still fails to meet it in the keenspace alexa rank here - Hahnchen 03:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is semi-coherent nonsense - not a verifiable micronation. There was no "coup d'etat" in Sealand in 2002, and the claim that its "territory and geography are not exactly known" - despite consisting of a man-made island 300 km² in size in the South Atlantic, speaks volumes. Gene_poole 03:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 14:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a web directory... -- Mysidia ( talk) 03:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I did the speedy delete. Geogre 21:27, 23 September 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 Speedied. Please leave the AfD notice intact when adding the CSD notice to an article, so the deleting admin knows to close the relevant discussion. Thanks. android 79 12:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability. I think it is speedy/A7 but wanted second opinions. Groeck 04:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 02:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Commercial plug for a non notable "business school". jmd 04:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
He doesn't appear to be notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. -- Kjkolb 04:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Irrelevant. Mention CPU speeds in Pentium article if desired/useful. Groeck 04:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 03:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Probably a hoax. Google turns up two hits, both WP, 0 hits for "Cherokee Moon Ceremonies," and 72 for "Cherokee Moon Ceremony," only 7 of which are considered original enough to be displayed. There may be a moon ceremony, but I doubt this is it. -- Blackcap | talk 04:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
My credentials can be found on talk:cherokee. Gadugi 06:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep Give Gadugi some time to edit. No reason to assume that it is suspect. Sources can be provided in time. Important to include the culture of native North Americans in Wikipedia. At the moment hugely underrepresented. - Unsigned post by 222.95.1.224.
I would like to draw attention to some of Gadugi's edits of this AfD, which are now buried in the edit history ( [8], [9], [10], [11]). I think they certainly qualify as personal attacks, especially the bits about me being an Irish steel worker (never been near a steel foundry in my life), and the bit about me being blocked for disruption. Considering that these posts were made here in response to my listing this article for AfD, I figured it was appropriate to mention this. I've left a message on his talk page here. -- Blackcap | talk 08:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Oh my god, I just saw an ILM forming. You posted comments I was a hoax and marked a perfectly valid article for Afd in bad faith. You also bragged on your talk page about being an Irish (Steel) "Blue Collar" worker. Dont post content on Wiki if you dont want it copied and edited. I removed those comments I made because they were inappropriate. I see conduct like this on SCOX all the time but now I see it here. ILM Alert. Gadugi 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
You called this article a Hoax and me. You probably should actually read the articles before voting Afd. You keep quoting Wiki policy, yet Google shows 31,000 hits on this topic, then you quote NPA policies, while it was you who attacked by posting an Afd to the article accusing the author of being a hoax and a fraud without ever having read it or inquiring. Why don't you just admit, "I was lazy and was attacking Jeff because I do not like him based on the stuff I saw on the internet, and I pounced the moment I saw him post this article and I was in the wrong, AfD withdrawn." Instead you keep justifying your actions when everything you claimed, all of your reasoning, your research (or lack thereof) all indicate you did not even attempt to verify information before voting, and you were in the wrong from the start. Gadugi 17:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not to mention his suggestion that Fvw had been reverting his edits [12], something which the page history shows to be false. - Unsigned post by 82.15.19.128.
Also calling me "SCOX ILM Member" in the previous edit. I'm sure calling someone a member of a lynch mob counts as a personal attack.
Flame bait comment posted above. Also, this person is stalking as they have apparently read Internet Shell Shock. 67.137.28.187 17:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Another possible candidate for speedy/A7. Groeck 04:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Indie band with no entry on allmusic.com; if they actually have a legitimate claim to notability, I don't know what it would be. Delete or prove me wrong. Bearcat 04:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (withdrawn by nominator). Neutrality talk 22:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem notable to me, although I invite any South African Wikipedians to vouch for its notability.
sɪzlæk [
+t,
+c,
+m ] 05:12, 23 September 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. Oleg Alexandrov 03:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure of the point of this list, but it seems to be mainly "think up a phrase containing the word fuck and list its first initial letters". -- fvw * 05:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Pure advertisement. Contains more information about Rockstarpix TV than it does about Giambra (coincidentally, the page creator is Rockstarpixtv.) I'm sure advertising the awesomeness of their ... whatever it is, and all the people who work for it, on Wikipedia, sounded like a dandy idea. The problem is, it's not what Wikipedia is for. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Ok, here is Michael Giambra's media credentials when he photographed Ronald Reagan for the NY Times at the Toronto World Economic Summit. Oh, did I mention this was one of his first assignements for the NY Times when he was 18 years old??-- Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Pictures of Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull on the day that Michael Giambra interviewed and photographed him. He has won a Grammy Award, is that noteworthy enough Feldspar? He was asked to photograph and interview him by Ian and his management directly.-- Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Hmmm, Has anyone here ever heard of Billy Idol?-- Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Hey Feldspar, what is up your ass buddy? Michael Giambra is not a "celebrity photographer". He is a working journalist and producer. You should try to get your facts straight before you try to classify others. Why don't you tell us what great acomplishments you have produced other than your snarky, anal comments here? He does not "try" to get photographs of famous people. Michael Giambra is invited and encouraged to document them and treated as a friend and a peer by them. I try to remain humble here but I can back up everything I am stating here about Mr. Giambra with his photographic evidence and historical proof. What angers me is that someone with NO credibility (other than your affiliation to wikipedia) can try to berate and belittle his 20+ years of photography, journalism and video production work without ANY knowledge of the truth or facts. --
Rockstarpixtv 02:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 14:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Imaginary music genre. Death metal, yes, but love metal? — Wahoofive ( talk) 05:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
He is a businessman who is not particularly notable. -- Kjkolb 05:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 11:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Google for "Dodge B110" -wikipedia yields a mere 76 results. Essentially no info, just a stub. If it could be expanded with lots of useful info, I'd say keep it, but it seems like just another stub from here. delete Malo 05:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 14:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not noteworthy Jwissick 06:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 18:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. -- fvw * 06:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article seems to be noninformational self-posturing about a specific character in the role-playing game mentioned. -- 24.21.181.39 06:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef, no potential for expansion other than useless list of solo artists. — Wahoofive ( talk) 06:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Band who had the potential to be big until their lead singer was involved in a horrific car accident. Sad, but we don't have articles on might-have-beens. — Wahoofive ( talk) 06:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense/not noteworthy Jwissick 06:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism with a bunch of external links. -- fvw * 06:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Pointless. Jwissick 06:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
merge to Nod (gesture) -- Astrokey44 07:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is just an advertisement for www.motorzone.com.my -- Kjkolb 06:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: sent to copyright violations -- fvw * 22:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:is not a mirror for mere collections of images.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). However, I would like to remark that a mistake was made when the article was moved to a new title. The redlink in the AFD tag should then have been fixed with a redirect to this debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I thought at first that this was original research. But the user who wrote the article said that he had heard about it somewhere else, although he wasn't sure where or what the concept was usually called. Google gives no hits under the name Virtual Scoring or Relative Scoring, and no-one on WikiProject Cricket seems to have heard of the concept.
In summary, it's probably not original research, but it is uncorroborated and unsourced, and probably misnamed too. Delete, unless someone can find a source, in which case move to the correct name.
Stephen Turner 07:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [Vote later changed as a result of the debate, see below.
Stephen Turner 09:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)]
reply
Frankly, I get sick and tired of people who "don't think something is a suitable topic". This is an encyclopaedia and its purpose as such is to be a work containing information about every department of human knowledge. I presume cricket statistics is a department of human knowledge and is worthy of being a sub-category of cricket to contain numerous articles about statistical methods and approaches? In that case, if some members of the ACS use a technique to compare batsmen in 1805 with batsmen in 2005, is that method not a legitimate subject for inclusion in the cricket stats category; or is it more important to exercise pedantry because someone has encountered something in an encyclopaedia that he has not heard of before and "cannot find on Google"? I despair. --
Jack 11:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
Update Done. The page has been rewritten to make the article more concise and to include the general source. A suitable name has been agreed upon and the article redirected to that name:
Comparative performance scoring (cricket). --
Jack 12:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
MAY WE PLEASE HAVE A FINAL DECISION TO END THIS DISCUSSION WHICH HAS EXHAUSTED ITSELF?
The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 17:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Alarmingly, a hoax with a lot of redlinks and a "see also". Already speedied earlier contribution by creator. Jkelly 08:15, 23 September 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 by User:Gamaliel -- Doc (?) 09:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Entire text of article reads "Porsha Blaze is a former pornography model from the U.S." plus a link to her page at a commercial porn site - while I'm sure that's great for her, it's hardly encyclopedic. Article formerly contained personal information (now deleted by administrator) and a link to a personal blog kept by the actress who played Porsha Blaze, which stalkerbait appears to have been the entire point of the article. Vizjim 08:29, 23 September 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 Speedied. android 79 12:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
3rd party vanity page, no assertin of evidence for notability Usrnme h8er 08:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement, the link is to a domain called "p2padvertisement" Usrnme h8er 08:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Marked as a speedy for non-notability - but CSD not met. However, a proposed railway station looks nn to me. -- Doc (?) 09:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Product promotion, linked web page is not even in english. feydey 10:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Eugene van der Pijll 11:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to have started as a vanity page promoting someones pen collection on the web. Although the subject is probably suitable for an article, I can't see that this article as is is suitable as a starting point. Nothings links here. -- Egil 11:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was move. Eugene van der Pijll 11:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The guy is actually not a cardinal (see [16]). I already moved the content of the article to Josef Clemens, thus no information is lost. Gugganij 11:17, 23 September 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. Roughly 29 keep votes, 21 delete votes. Cleanup take will be added - I'd suggest possible attention tag too. Hedley 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Always going to be POV; limited encyclopediac value. Talrias ( t | e | c) 01:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC) reply
NOTE: This Vfd has gone through 1 week of voting, and appears to be a close match. I suppose we could err on the side of 'caution' and completely redesign the article, with some help of course. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
While heart-warming in detail, it looks very much like a vanity page. The user who created it is anonymous, and their contributions (3) to date (~1 month) consist of edits to this page. I suspect self-promotion. -- Plumbago 12:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable group, not in Allmusic, the article has no info on releases, etc. feydey 12:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 17:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. Unfortunately not incoherent enough to be speedied. jni 12:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep as redirect. Eugene van der Pijll 11:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The other Mikuni Shimokawa article has the same info (and more), is formatted better, and correctly capitalizes the family name in the title. -- Darren Lee 13:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). A vote was made to "pony" as well. Let's see... Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Friends, I implore you to delete this crap about some random chinese primary school written in pigeon English and with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Dunc| ☺ 13:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn bandcruft. Delete. Finishing a cleanup of user's nn contribs. Fails WP:MUSIC; no allmusic entry, only plays locally in NYC area. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 13:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MERGE to Andy Ross. — JIP | Talk 19:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn bandcruft. Delete. Finishing a cleanup of user's nn contribs. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 13:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn bandcruft. Delete. Finishing a cleanup of user's nn contribs. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 13:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn albumcruft. Delete. Finishing a cleanup of user's nn contribs. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 13:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn bandcruft. Delete. Was a redirect back to the band listed. Finishing a cleanup of user's nn contribs. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 13:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
d, nn User:RasputinAXP
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:WIN the Singaporese yellow pages. Yet more schoolcruft. Dunc| ☺ 13:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
More schoolcruft. Substub, if you exclude the vandalism that it has accrued since no-one cares enough to watch it properly. Dunc| ☺ 13:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Article claims it's a small town in Indonesia, and there is no other content. However, Google can't find it, and "tukehduta" is Finnish for "suffocate". Possible hoax. Delete unless it can be verified. Any Indonesians in here? — JIP | Talk 14:20, 23 September 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 The Land 09:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
No idea of the reason for nomination! Stephenb 14:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The original nominator ( User:Connor Wolf) doesn't say why this was nominated, though he has made some strange contributions to Vfds in the past ( Sean W. Wright?).
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. Though they do appear to have local gigs and a CD, they are unsigned and not yet of note. Maybe when they get big, someone will create an entry for them. Best of luck! Habap 14:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not linked to or from anything. May be a vanity page for the site mentioned but should be deleted as being non-noteworthy. Al Clark 14:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for a website [28]. Kusunose 14:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Article on a non-notable band, which also looks very much like advertising. Loganberry ( Talk) 15:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software project. Google query found one relevant match, wikipedia should not be used to establish notability. CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 15:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). When moving a page under a deletion discussion, please remeber to fix the subsequent redlink in the AFD tag by making a redirect to the ongoing discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The systematic bias against doctor's surgeries, churches, parks and supermarkets (etc) and in favour of primary schools should be addressed by killing the schoolcruft. Dunc| ☺ 15:30, 23 September 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. - Splash talk 01:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Article establishes little or no claim to notability; Google search "Filemon Canete" returns 55 unique hits. Paul 06:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this, the original entry didn't draw enough discussion to establish a consensus. Rx StrangeLove 15:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was 'DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity record label of the already-deleted band The Biscuits — Wahoofive ( talk) 15:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Previously submitted for Speedy/A7. Resubmitting as NN per
WP:BIO (per below; should be kept).
Groeck 15:47, 23 September 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. - Splash talk 01:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism; there are two WP articles about "Robert Levin," although neither is the one who is credited with coining this word; 86 unique Google hits. Paul 06:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting this, the original entry didn't draw enough discussion to establish a consensus. Rx StrangeLove 15:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising. Does not seem to be notable. DJ Clayworth 15:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). There were suggestions to merge this with List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Redirecting this page there might be an option, but after reviewing that article, I have found that it does not accomodate biographies like this article, but only the names and some vestigial info. Therefore I will let the article stay and not merge it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
NN ≈ jossi ≈
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Page was initially created as a speedyable context-less map thing. Then a spammer came along and rescued it, with spam. Clearly non-notable (if we're still allowed to say that here), described in the article as "a free online multiplayer game in it's infancy". The game being advertised no longer really exists, as the website on which it's hosted has been suspended. Google seems to return unrelated websites. fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 15:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I've never heard of Campylactis, and a Google search doesn't turn up anything; a search of PubMed doesn't turn up anything; other random medical and veterinary medical journals I've looked in have nothing about it. The treatment is rose hips and grubs? I think somebody's trying to pull a fast one... -- CDN99 15:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable techsite. DS 15:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 11:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
No assertion that this is a notable person. According to the article on Guantanamo Bay there are currently 520 prisoners held there. It might be useful for someone to compile a list of them and put it all on one page, but I see no reason for each prisoner to have his own article. Brandon39 16:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Fans of the fanclub of a fanfilm of a film. We're about four degrees from notability here. DS 16:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 11:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not a notabile person. Article on Guantanamo Bay lists 520 detainees. No reason is given why this individual merits his own article. Brandon39 16:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 06:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not a notable person. Same reasoning as in three other articles on named Guantanamo Bay prisoners that are already listed for deletion. Brandon39 16:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 11:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page consists of a Latin-language dictdef and a description of a Chicago graffiti artist. Neither topic is encyclopedic, and though the former may be worth transwikiing to the Latin language wiktionary, it would have to be translated first. NatusRoma 16:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Eugene van der Pijll 11:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
With recent edits it's become clear that this band never existed. No trace can be found of its "chart-topper" hits, the movie one of the members supposedly appeared in, the TV series another supposedly appeared in, their producer -- it's 198.86.158.10 ( talk · contribs)'s fiction. Delete this hoax; Wikipedia isn't for this nonsense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Contrary to what the Polish presidential election, 2005 article says, he didn't even manage to register his electoral committee [35]. Włos' candidacy is rather a kind of joke or a way to promote his "business", just take a look at his website, here's the translation: "Earn money at home - quickly, reliably, no risk, no investments required, free info - send a postage stamp". Roman Włos article in Polish Wikipedia has been already deleted. Filemon 17:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
some random Victorian primary school. Useful info: the kids get culture shock when they go to high school! Dunc| ☺ 17:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 06:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn, fails WP:MUSIC, albumcruft. Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DraculaZombieUSA. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 18:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was 'DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Seems to a record label operating out of a dorm room. Not notable? DJ Clayworth 18:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 05:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Topic is irrelavant and was creadted by a known-offending IP; additionally, the article contains bad grammar and punctuation. Chingador 18:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deleted - R. fiend 00:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity article, not notable, and I hate anyone who puts numbers after their name as if they were royalty! MacRusgail 19:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
AMG knows the name of a folk band by this name, but has nothing on these guys. Nothing to suggest they meet WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. A single keep vote given without reason or not addressing any of the reasons given to delete does not carry much weight. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Small-time record label. Nothing to suggest notability. Apparent main claim to fame is The Hopefuls, who are also on Afd. Friday (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm quite sure that this article is a hoax, for a couple of reasons:
The biography sounds quite plausible, could be from someone else, but I'm pretty sure this is fake. JoanneB 19:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect. Eugene van der Pijll 12:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The content of this article is not very notable and it appears to be an ad. Solarusdude 19:12, 23 September 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 to keep the article. Moved to S. Parthasarathi Ayyangar and deleted title. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Very POV, nn person, prob by friend or family. Fluency in several languages is common in India. MacRusgail 19:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 06:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Self-evident article with no material of interest. JG Ballard is a good writer, but what's the point of this? MacRusgail 19:17, 23 September 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 Speedied. android 79 23:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Some sort of background on a family. Not enecylopedic. R. fiend 19:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy deletion, since once the photos were removed, there was no content. Zach (Sound Off) 01:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete or possibly merge to respective team pages. Uniform images are so far all tagged with {{ nosource}} and will probably be deleted. There's no other content in these articles. -- Durin 19:51, 23 September 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 at 20:06, 23 September 2005 UTC by User:Charles Matthews. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Assertion of notability seems to be a hoax. Google hits on "yo soy"+Stibitz come up with nothing. -- Curps 19:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity. Very weak claim of notability. Says little more than "he's an architect". It's nice to know he's employed, and all, but there's no reason he belongs in an encyclopedia. R. fiend 19:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
"Court Jester Umbo Scrubbelnuts is a character in Everquest". For fuck's sake, why would someone think that their jigbugrick EVERQUEST CHARACTER deserves a Wikipedia entry? I don't CARE that he won the "funniest gnome" contest! NO ONE cares that he won the "funniest gnome" contest!
.... my goodness, am I ranting? DS 20:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I have played everquest for going on 5 years now, I don't know Umbo personally but i do know of him and his accomplishments. This gnome is highly respected in the everquest community and I am almost positive that the majority of the everquest community would agree with most everything said in that umbo page is true. Certainly you would agree that this mage who set the standard for many everquest strategies and being probably the most influential character on the biggest and first mmorpg created deserves some recognition. Also I am fairly sure Umbo himself didnt make that page. -Tokar Guild leader EQ Community forum admin.
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_to_save_Umbo"
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I found this while deleting links after closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lillehovde's Dynamic Network Address Protocol. In that debate, the author and main proponent of the article states that the information in Wikipedia on LDP constitutes original research. This other article appears to be a highly related article, and I submit that it is also most likely original research. I hope someone more knowledgeable than I in network protocols checks this. moink 20:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Unable to verify any claims made other than vague references to ID4 tags during Google search with no detail gatherable other than that they may exist. Article text seems to admit this. Pipian 20:46, 23 September 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 -> Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Feels unsustainable. Typically when music is in fiction, it's actual music; the premise here is for a song which is only mentioned and never actually performed in any way. DS 20:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Tony Samara The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page . |
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm a big fan of Lemony Snicket but the Thirteenth book? We haven't even got the Twelfth yet! We have no idea of what it willbe about, the title, nothing. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Celestianpower hab 21:35, 23 September 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) 19:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
No sources given for this book, which has no entry in The Library of Congress. The majority of the page seems to deal with some sort of fan page with some secretive access method. -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure about this thing, I swear that a few months ago I heard about it, but I'm not sure. Friends of mine are into this kind of stuff, so I'm not sure. I say do whatever. I admit it sounds hoaxy. user:IAmTheWalrus
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) 06:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable neologism; zero Google hits Tonywalton | Talk 21:42, 23 September 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. Paul August ☎ 16:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company; does not appear to be publicly traded or otherwise significant; likely promotion; 86 unique Google hits. (Nominated along with Jackson Mahr) Paul 15:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I'm relisting this because the original entry didn't draw enough discussion to judge consensus. Rx StrangeLove 21:47, 23 September 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 Speedied by Jtkiefer. android 79 05:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Earlier versions of this were speedied my myself and others as patent nonsense. But it is back and no longer patent nonsense: still nn, non-verifiable, and googleless, but not, I judge, a speedy. Please delete, and I suggest closer protects against re-creation. -- Doc (?) 21:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply
isn't quite For thy sweet love remembered, such wealth brings .... But then again what is?
Dlyons493 22:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
*Don't DeleteAnommas Pooter is real and will soon have a website and Myspace music spotlight, have made 6 cds i know, i am listening to one right now. If you guys want to delete this you are ignorant, they're UNDERGROUND of course it wouldnt be on google, last time i checked, google.com wasnt a big west coast rap site. (unsigned by
User:AnommasPooter)
*Don't Delete This is real, some stuff was embelished, but it is fact www.geocities.com/anommaspooter -- vote from
User:AnommasPooter
reply
*No Delete This is truth, no matter what anybody says, My source is the six cds made by Anommas Pooter in my Ipod-- unsigned vote from
User:PerriceZw whose only contributions are to this page.
*DO NOT DELETE I AM A STRONG SUPPORTER OF ANOMMAS POOTER AND API, if you delete i swear to God, you will have a boycott in parts the Bay Area and California -- unsigned vote from
User:PerriceZw whose only contributions are to this page.
*Don't Delete Agree with above voter -- unsigned vote from
User:OaklandPlaya7772 whose only contributions are to this page.
*Don't Delete This is a legit rap group, they have a huge fanbase unsigned vote from
User:Lyzford whose only contributions are to this page.
*Don't Delete Pooter is real, I know a lot of the members unsigned vote from
User:67.160.204.186
*Don't Delete dont trust drini, hes a sock puppet --unsigned vote from
User:67.160.204.186
*Dont Delete Zscout shouldnt count he doesnt even know what hes opposed to, Pooter is a group, not a person --unsigned vote from
User:67.160.204.186
Dont Delete. Pooter is real, you just dont know it... Unsigned vote from
User:67.169.156.60
*Dont Delete" Anommas pooter is good rap! Unsigned vote from
User:67.160.204.186
*Don't Delete Anommas Pooter is working on a webpage (www.geocities.com/anommaspooter) and just had a photo op in Oakland, so yes I would have to say Pooter is real. Unsigned vote by
User:24.4.33.96.
*DONT DELETE! THEYRE TIGHT! Unsigned vote from
User:207.62.163.93
*DONT DELETE! I listen to the Best of Pooter CD daily and its quality Unsigned vote from
User:198.188.150.5.
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) 02:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Man, am I itchin' to speedy this, as it's terribly non-notable, but it doesn't really fit any CSD criteria. Anyway, 0 google hits for a game invented by a few college kids a couple years ago. R. fiend 22:03, 23 September 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) 02:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a neologism; can find no evidence that this term is actually used. The fallacy actually described appears to be another form of ad hominem. I'd say Delete. Your thoughts? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 23 September 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) 02:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Substub about a band which doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. No allmusic entry, Googling for "Natural Breakdown" together with relevant words such as band and New Jersey yields very few hits. Punkmorten 22:30, 23 September 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 consensus to delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Unmaintainable, way too broad, listcruft. Delete. Punkmorten 22:42, 23 September 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) 02:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Relisting on AfD after previous discussion failed to reach a consensus. This article is about a non-notable fan fiction. Pburka 22:44, 23 September 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) 02:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This was tagged for speedy, but doesn't quite qualify. I'm not exactly sure about this, as "Wong Shun Leung" gets me 14,000 google hits, but a preliminary glance seems to indicate a much older fellow, who too is a martial artist. I'm tempted to think there's some potential for an article, but not this. If someone can write a real article about the potentially quite notable martial artist, then I'll likely change my vote. Until then, this should be deleted. R. fiend 22:52, 23 September 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 by R. fiend at 00:10, 24 September 2005 UTC. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:21, 29 September 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) 02:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, non-notable band vanity. Only 50 useful Google hits (note that in the full list many are repeated many times within individual websites), and no allmusic.com presence. This suggests they have an EP and a something on a Emo label, but doesn't mention that they have charted or toured (except low key locally). Fails WP:MUSIC. (Oh, and they don't have their own website, they're only on myspace.com) - Splash talk 23:15, 23 September 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 Speedied. -- Golbez 13:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn porn quasi-star (let's not be blinded by the use of the word "star", here). Main claim to fame is broadcasting occasionally on pirate radio. IMDb does not find this individual, although it turns up two other Jodie Andrewses who have each appeared in 1 film. Dead easy to make porn movies, so not making any means you're probably not a star. - Splash talk 23:19, 23 September 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) 02:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete invented 'sexual' 'act'. Google does not find any relevant hits in the first few pages — they're all just adjacent coincidences of the two words. Do not redirect to List of sexual slang because I just don't buy that this is such. Just a teenage mind fantasising. - Splash talk 23:24, 23 September 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete nn band-vanity. Their legendary leader scores 22 on the Google scale, and the band as a whole scores 200 useful Googles, many of which appear to be advertising, unsurprisingly. There is this which says they have two releases, but those releases are 2 of the 3 total releases of their label, so they don't meet any of WP:MUSIC so far as I can tell. - Splash talk 23:30, 23 September 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) 02:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable web page, no alexa ranking. WP is not a web catalog. feydey 23:29, 23 September 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) 02:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete terminology apparently invented by the two individuals named in the article who "conclude that this will be the next big cybersport". In any case highly specific to Counterstrike, and we should not redirect a neologism. - Splash talk 23:41, 23 September 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats hardly appear to be a notable topic. Solarusdude 23:41, 23 September 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete: This article seems to be promotional and biased in nature. No user will benefit from it. Manjithkaini