Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 26

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect to Dell, Inc.. Hedley 3 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

[edit] Dell Dimension

No Content not found in Dell article

• Delete - useless Billhpike 00:15, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Sorry for proposing this for deletion Billhpike 03:00, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. No harm in a redirect, as I could see people looking up the model. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:21, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Redirect, popular Dell model. Shem^(talk) 00:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. This is a widely popular model, at least in the UK, although I'm feeling too lazy to provide a quantitative link for that. -Splash 00:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• A Redirect is warranted, given over 1 million Google hits CanadianCaesar 01:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect ℬastique▼^talk 01:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopedic...--GrandCru 01:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dell. Easy enough. --taestell 05:09, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Dell, Inc. and avoid the double redirect from the Dell disambiguation page. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dell. Zpb52 15:50, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 01:20 (UTC)

[edit] Amaunator

Reads like a nonsense hoax. From some Googling it seems to be a character from Icewind Dale, or something to do with it. "Netherese" "Amaunator" got 90 hits. Regardless, I don't think an ancient God who is practically unknown to Google is notable. Hedley 00:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep fictional ancient deities. Kappa 00:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Much as it pains me, keep and expand. Almost 5500 google hits. Pburka 01:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't search for "Amaunator", as its also a word in French it seems, which is where about 3,500 or so of this hits are coming from. Add Netherese and the hits go down rapidly. Hedley 01:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point. But searching for Amaunator god still yields almost 1200 hits. I think it's some sort of Dungeons and Dragons thing. As notable as a Pokémon. Maybe merge and redirect to Dead god (Dungeons & Dragons) Pburka 01:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Delete I... I... think this is fiction, and it gets only 121 Google hits by my count. Non notable, unless someone can prove the Netherese were a real people and Amaunator was one of their gods CanadianCaesar 01:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) **Unless someone can prove notability and/or check his or her fiction. CanadianCaesar 02:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC).

• Delete Non-notable. The article read like Manga. ℬastique▼^talk 01:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup. Verifiable, but contributor needs to check his/her fiction. — Gwalla | Talk 02:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge somehere where it is its context. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 03:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - this is fiction, it probably came from a red-link from List of Forgotten Realms deities. WP:FICT supports it being merged into Dead god (Dungeons & Dragons). -- Jonel | Speak 04:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable fictional character. JamesBurns 05:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep and cleanup. Forgotten Realms is an extremely popular setting, and I recognized the reference despite minimal familiarity. A. J. Luxton 07:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT. Not sufficiently important for an independent page. Martg76 07:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but certainly needs work jamesgibbon 12:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, minor entity not worthy of its iwn article. -R. fiend 14:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of deities of Dungeons & Dragons. Stilgar135 17:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, if you were to merge you would have to merge with List of Forgotten Realms deities. But that page is just enumeration and would need a major do-over to be able to merge with Amaunator. -Ovrad 21:06, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've updated the page, it makes a lot more sense now. -Ovrad 22:12, 06 Jul 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the appropriate deities page on the game described -Rob Church 23:44, 01/07/2005 (GMT)
• Keep - Diety in an extremely notable campaign setting in an extremely notable roleplaying game. Cyclone49 2 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 3 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)

[edit] Fight to Kill

Non-notable forum RPG. Blatant obvious that its nothing special by the "Story by: The Dan", the predicting the future and the link to a thread on the Namco forums. Hedley 00:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Decent case to delete it based on violation of WP:NOT a soapbox. Stronger case for deletion: non-encyclopedic due to absence of information from sources other than original research. The Literate Engineer 00:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ℬastique▼^talk 01:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 05:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn You (Talk) 19:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 3 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

[edit] Neil johnson

Seems like a pretty un-exceptional photographer. Was marked to userfy by Harro5 but i've moved it here as it just looks like vanity to me. Hedley 00:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Created by anonymous user with this single article to claim. Doesn't even capitalize his name properly. Probably vanity. ℬastique▼^talk 01:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 05:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no place to userfy to. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. Listing his children is always a clue. --Etacar11 19:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy deleted Deletion log says: "11:27, 26 June 2005 Charles Matthews deleted "Danny brown" (delete 15-year-old guitarist)" Zzyzx11 (Talk) 3 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)

[edit] Danny brown

Delete not notable vanity. Google gives no relevant hits. Give him a few years before a WP page. -Splash 00:50, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or move to user page. Like above, harmless vanity. Will => talk 00:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity CanadianCaesar 01:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and wish him the best in life. ℬastique▼^talk 01:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy if the current CSD proposal regarding speedying vanity passes. Else, delete as nn vanity! --Idont Havaname 04:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 05:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion/vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect to Made-up words in The Simpsons. Hedley 3 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)

[edit] Skittle bräu

The content is, "Skittle BräU" is a fictional drink that is invented by Homer Simpson. (from "The Simpsons") It is made by mixing skittles with Duff beer. I have no further comment as to why this should be deleted. Hedley 01:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Made-up words in The Simpsons, which already contains the term. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:22, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Redirect ℬastique▼^talk 01:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect. Pburka 01:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopedic...--GrandCru 01:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above.-Splash 02:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 05:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Made-up words in The Simpsons. Duplicated info. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|BD2412] - Jersyko talk 16:45, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 2 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)

[edit] Newscover Midlands

Hoax, delete. --SPUI (talk) 01:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax likely due to A - Lack of sites other than Wikipedia mirrors on Google, and B - Creation on April 1st. Hedley 01:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Strange name, too. ℬastique▼^talk 01:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's a Newscover Magazine[1] based in London, but it seems to be different. Pburka 01:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this does seem to be a hoax, since it appears nowhere other than WP mirrors. -Splash 02:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete got 7 Google hits, so even if it's real (which I doubt), it's non notable CanadianCaesar 02:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete created on April 1. mikka (t) 21:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 01:33 (UTC)

[edit] Belo Horizonte/Pictures

Delete This article is an orphan and all of its pictures are duplicated in entirety at Belo Horizonte — ℬastique▼^talk 01:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, same reason Bryan 03:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate content. JamesBurns 05:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia articles are not a gallery of images. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 01:34 (UTC)

[edit] Scotchguard Powered Bong

Uttery useless, and the phrase returns 2 hits on google, not a good sign for drug references. "Scotchguard bong" returns aroung 150 hits. humblefool® 01:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Rangek 02:33, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Delete dubious dicdef. Gazpacho 04:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete although I admit I never thought I'd ever see those three words used together. 23skidoo 04:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable dicdef. JamesBurns 05:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic.--GrandCru 19:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to bong. Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 22:48 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 01:37 (UTC)

[edit] Cadence Weapon

Delete because it looks an awful lot like vanity, and non-notable. Plus: Alberta Rappers?—ℬastique▼^talk 01:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. However, gets about 700 Google hits. I think maybe he should try again when he has actually released a couple of albums, per WP:MUSIC. -Splash 02:17, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per WP:MUSIC, plenty of media coverage. Kappa 02:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails wikipedia guidlelines WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns 05:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This deserves to be expanded. I don't know which of the reviews mentioned in the article qualify under criterion #4 of WP:MUSIC, but regardless, he's notable under criterion #6. Or is there a more prominent Edmonton rapper? Factitious 07:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sure there's some logical fallacy there. Being the most prominent Edmonton rapper isn't really saying much. — Phil Welch 04:11, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Why isn't that saying much? I've never been to Edmonton, so there may be something I'm missing about the place. Factitious 04:28, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until he actually releases an album. Then we'll see. -R. fiend 14:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually only 160 displayed hits. Niteowlneils 16:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No releases, no article. Denni☯ 21:22, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
  • He released Cadence Weapon Is The Black Hand. WP:MUSIC points out that there are guidelines for notability other than number of releases. As I said earlier, he qualifies under them. Factitious 00:27, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, let's go with local notability. We live in the same city - his local profile is zero. Denni☯ 01:43, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
      • I'd assumed that the Edmonton publications referred to in the article were significant ones. Are they? Since you live in Edmonton, you'd probably know more about them than I would. Factitious 02:40, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Critera 4 is met, as Cadence Weapon has been featured in every Edmonton magazine or paper, from the lowliest indie rag to the fully accredited chain papers like The Edmonton Journal and The Edmonton Sun. He has also been featured on online media sources like Pitchfork Media, Stylus Magazine, and taste-making blogs like Fluxblog. Criteria 6 is met because no Edmonton rapper has even a fraction of the influence, scope, or reach of Cadence. FuzzMcKenzie

Sorry, Fuzz, but you are not really eligible to vote, no history on Wikipedia as FuzzMcKenzie or as 68.151.36.151. I wish you the best in your career. Vanity article. ℬastique▼^talk 03:40, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do not bite the newcomers. Factitious 04:28, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Not a bite. I wished him best. Look at the newcomer's contributions. Wikipedia is not Self-promotion. ℬastique▼^talk 04:45, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per the above. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 11:42 (UTC)
• Delete not notable CDC (talk) 28 June 2005 13:57 (UTC)
• Delete Anon's use of Edmonton Journal as major music media to satisfy WP:MUSIC #4 is cute, but wrong. I'm sure that this artist will eventually meet one of the others. Come back then. Unsinkable 28 June 2005 19:20 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 2 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

[edit] Lick My Jesus

Non-notable webcomic. No Alexa rank. No content in article other than "it's a webcomic" and an external link. — Gwalla | Talk 01:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. This amounts to a single external link (hence speediable) since the only other content is identical to the title.-Splash 02:18, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete webcomic advertisement. JamesBurns 05:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not even a good webcomic. ℬastique▼^talk 05:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I found this link in a Google Search which yielded on 4 *real* hits. Offical Website Don't know if it will make a difference or not, but it appears to be a "real" webcomic. I don't particularly care for it, not that my opinion matters. Nahallac Silverwinds 05:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• There's not more content yet because I created the article, eh, only yesterday! Sorry for not being too profolic writer. 09:49, 26 Jun 2005 (GMT+2) — unsigned comment by 213.216.199.10 (talk · contribs)
• Speedy delete not exactly encyclopedia material...--GrandCru 07:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a platform for an external link. Still, I don't think it should be expanded, the webcomic in question has no Alexa ranking. This google search isn't inspiring either. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Useless. Zpb52 15:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Hehe, well, the Superfloss comic is funny. But, not encyclopedic. — unsigned vote by Satanicbowlerhat (talk · contribs)
• Delete: nonnotable. mikka (t) 21:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: nonnotable. Nahallac Silverwinds 02:34, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 28 June 2005 14:53 (UTC)
• Delete for stated reasons. unsigned vote by Kross (talk · contribs)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 01:38 (UTC)

[edit] Kick in the Head

Non-notable webcomic. Alexa rank 5,504,016. Comics LiveJournal (it doesn't seem to have a forum) gets maybe 2 comments on a given strip, tops. — Gwalla | Talk 01:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable webcomic. JamesBurns 05:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not widely read. Low Alexa ranking, not enough reader reviews. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: The article doesn't seem to be vanity. I say keep it. Zpb52 15:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:Celestianpower/Comment

• • Comment: I only got 65 uniques for "kick in the head" webcomic, not all of which were relevant ("kick in the head" is a pretty common phrase). This VfD subpage was the 4th from the top. — Gwalla | Talk 01:32, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 11:43 (UTC)
• Delete not notable CDC (talk) 28 June 2005 13:58 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)

[edit] Clay Cook

Vanity Page, nothing to indicate any kind of notability Gblaz 02:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - you were a fraction of a femtosecond ahead of me! However, I'm weak because I've heard of ineedhits.com, but "Clay Cook" and ineedhits returns only 20 unique Google hits, so notability is marginal. He competed in some non-Googleable sailing contest but does not appear to have won, so this does not help his notability. I might remove my weakness in time. -Splash 02:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy to ClayCook (talk · contribs) Pburka 02:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I have now added my "notability" for you all to view and judge. ClayCook
• If that is it Speedy Delete--Porturology 02:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, don't bite the newbies and remember that non-notability (even vanity) isn't yet a speedy criterion. -Splash 03:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Agreed, it was over the top but a lot of editorial time is spent voting for deletions on articles that are written by the subject of the article. In general I believe if you have to write your own article you are not notable. Perhaps it is time to consider self written articles as a reason for Speedy Deletion.--Porturology 04:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you on that. You might find the proposal from Uncle G to be of interest. -Splash 14:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Clay, this isn't Who's Who in Australian Business. Spend some time writing articles about other things...and get a professional to write your biography. ℬastique▼^talk 05:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Don't userfy, as the author already has text on his user page, may not want all of this, and is free and able to move as much as he wants to his user page. -- Hoary 06:20, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant vanity. Forbsey 06:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into User:ClayCook--Zpb52 15:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What Hoary said. Niteowlneils 17:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Along with Ineedhits, a part of a self-promotional campaign. From the new page edit dialog: Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:25, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. List of interests is included... --Etacar11 19:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Cook

Vanity, nothing to indicate notability Gblaz 02:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nnanity. Even operating on the premise that the VfD above is notable (which I doubt), that does not give his wife an automatic claim in her own right, unless she derives her own notability (e.g. Cherie Blair from Tony Blair).-Splash 02:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy to ClayCook (talk · contribs) Pburka 02:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect name to Rachael Leigh Cook? Hmm, that might be confusing... --Fastfission 06:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, following Splash's comments above. -- Hoary 06:18, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Userfy into ClayCook (talk · contribs) Zpb52 15:57, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (not userfy). User:ClayCook is not a redlink, so they should get to choose what, if any of this content they want to keep on their User page. Niteowlneils 17:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Part of a self-promotional campaign; see also Ineedhits. From the edit new page dialog: Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:27, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even less notable than her husband. --Etacar11 19:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 01:40 (UTC)

[edit] Comet Two-Sixty

non-encyclopedic pottercruft ➥the Epopt 02:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Fancruft of the worst sort. Delete. Martg76 07:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete trivial inside or outside the fiction CDC (talk) 28 June 2005 13:59 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. Scimitar 4 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)

[edit] Killara High School

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was "orphan vanity". Article does not establish the notability of this school. — Gwalla | Talk 02:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• keep A high school is in and of it's self noteable. Could be expanded Billhpike 03:09, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Pburka 04:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. DS1953 05:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Billhpike. Kappa 06:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Elliott C. Bäck 06:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 07:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -ÅfÇ++ 08:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Once you remove this unsourced POV statement (it's not POV as suggested above. "Killara has a strong reputation in academic achievement, music, dance, sport, debating and strong participation in the Duke of Edinburgh Scheme.", there's really not much of an article left. Could all those keep voters, please include reasons regarding the article, instead of it being a school? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Only two keep votes mentioned that it's a school, and both of them explained why they consider that to be a good reason. DoubleBlue further provided some very interesting links on the matter. Personally, I think we should keep this article because it's informative, easily expandable, and useful to people. I don't see any drawbacks to keeping it — do you? Factitious 12:00, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Kappa 14:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • While I agree that it should be better referenced directly as a source, the external links do verify the statements in the article. For example, see Killara news page particularly the last two items: Premier's Awards for All Round Excellence and HSC RESULTS 2004. If you think it is poorly referenced, I suggest adding an appropriate tag like {{Unreferenced}} or editing it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Accurate, expandable, verifiable, encyclopedic. Imagine if all stubs were up to those standards. Factitious 12:00, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Stub it, and hope somebody affiliated with it sees it and expands it. --Zpb52 15:59, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good stub. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:49, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Keep How about the deletionists give a reason other than it being a stub and alleged lack of notability, neither of which is a valid reason for deletion? CalJW 18:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a good stub to work on.--Bhadani 18:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've de-orphaned. ℬastique▼^talk 00:29, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Educating 3-400 students per year for 26 years. That's almost a small city. — RJH 03:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 07:54 (UTC)
• Strong delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 28 June 2005 08:59 (UTC)
• Keep Notable school. Klonimus 28 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)
• Keep good stub, inherently notable. Unfocused 29 June 2005 00:36 (UTC)
• Merge into Killara. This school is not notable, but fits nicely into the town's page -Harmil 30 June 2005 02:26 (UTC)
• Merge into Killara, per Harmil. --Idont Havaname 1 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Lally

vanity page Billhpike 02:58, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• delete Clearly vanity page Billhpike 02:58, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn vanity. JeremyA 03:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 05:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 19:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Mideul skul

This page redirects to Middle school. I agree that redirects are cheap, but I can't imagine that anyone would actually type this in expecting to get Middle school. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:59, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I can't imagine either, but redirects are cheap and worrying about them is unnecessary. keep, to discourage similar nominations. lots of issues | leave me a message 03:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Certainly respect your opinion, but why would you want to discourage pruning out nonsense? · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:29, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete though this really belongs at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. I'm an avid redirectionist, but this is not useful at all. -- Jonel | Speak 04:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • My sentiments exactly. I didn't realize RFD existed; should I move this there? · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; can't believe it's even a discussion jamesgibbon 12:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this bad joke. humblefool® 19:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Appears to be part of this anon's creation of Korean romanizations. --SPUI (talk) 20:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. Speedily deleted: absolutely no context and no known content. mikka (t) 03:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chunghakgyo

Redirects to Middle school, but only two hits on google Billhpike 03:07, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• delete Only 2 hits on google Billhpike 03:06, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was KEEP NSR 4 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)

[edit] Lurgy

• plain dicdef. mikka (t) 03:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable phantom contagion. Kappa 06:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a word, but the article adds more than dicdef content to it. Naturenet | Talk 09:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Malaise. The term is in common working class (e.g. Chav) usage in the UK. ~~~~ 10:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable word popularised by The Goon Show. [2]. Capitalistroadster 12:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, User:Celestianpower/Keep
• Keeeeeeeeeyakabuuu!!!!! Grutness...wha? 05:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 08:00 (UTC)
• Keep - it is a popular and widespread phrase which a great many people do not know the origin of.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Mgm --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 01:45 (UTC)

[edit] Warzaid

Delete ultra-stub. It is in fact a real game, but it's not about skeletons. Let's trash this and start over properly. Marblespire 03:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 05:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• well i played the game and all i was killing were skeltons so it must have somthing to do with it? right i dont know could be me if it is ia truly sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.229.4 (talk • contribs) . - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, substub in the extreme. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 01:46 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Schwartz

It appears to be vanity to me. Single-edit article by an anon and the only thing that links to it is a dab page (Schwarz#Schwartz). Cburnett 03:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity --L. Pistachio 04:17, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't even have to look at it... ℬastique▼^talk 05:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 19:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/self-promotion. Toasthaven 28 June 2005 16:38 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 01:48 (UTC)

[edit] Yosef Sutrisna

Delete as student vanity.FreplySpang (talk) 04:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable student vanity. JamesBurns 05:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn teenage vanity. --Etacar11 19:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Userfy --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 01:57 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Peake

Delete as vanity. On further examination, userfy either to User:Tdpeake or User:Tommy P. NatusRoma 04:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 05:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, nothing notable here. --Etacar11 19:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 01:51 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Frischmann

Not notable; 11 hits on Google for "Richard Frischmann" and its not even clear that it is the same person. Delete. DS1953 05:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Forbsey 06:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete relatives of (former?) famous people not inherently notable. --Etacar11 19:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. Scimitar 4 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

[edit] Cobra (band)

non-notable band Delete Dismas 05:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Wait? Who was that Chinese all-girl band in Kill Bill 2? Oh wait, that was Japanese... ℬastique▼^talk 05:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So is that a vote? Or just a snide remark? Dismas

• Delete under WP:MUSIC guidelines. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:37, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC, they've released two albums, and have prominent coverage in beijingscene.com [3] Kappa 06:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete under WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 06:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Cobra is apparently the first all-female rock band in mainland China. If nothing else, their international concert tour qualifies them under WP:MUSIC. [4] states that they've had some difficulties with the government, due to the political nature of some of their lyrics — if we can get some confirmation of this, it would help demonstrate notability. Factitious 11:27, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I would have added dates in the discography section, but there's some confusion: the Amazon page lists Hypocrisy as being released in 2001, though there are mentions elsewhere of that album existing before 1998. Also, the article claims that the band disbanded in the late 1990s. Does anyone know what the deal is with the chronology here? Factitious 11:27, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable Chinese band with two albums recorded. Capitalistroadster 12:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Article does not harm. Dmn / Դմն 14:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is a good start that could use expansion. — Phil Welch 04:18, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lots of unsubstantiated claims, but nothing but else. --W(t) 04:20, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
  • So let's substantiate them. I put in a couple external links; feel free to add more. This article should be expanded, not deleted. Factitious 04:30, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't believe that that this was nominated in the first place... — P Ingerson (talk) 28 June 2005 10:48 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Certainly meets WP:MUSIC criterion 2 and possibly #1 and #3, depending on label and whether Mainland China even HAD a top 100 list at the time.Unsinkable 28 June 2005 19:31 (UTC)
• Keep. If they really were "the first all-female rock band in mainland China", that makes them extremely notable for a band.--Pharos 29 June 2005 05:44 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)

[edit] Pantherman

Not quite sure a student directed movie that is only known at one high school is notable... Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:28, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, pure vanity. --Fastfission 06:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete student vanity. JamesBurns 06:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete clear vanity. Forbsey 06:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious vanity, and almost no information. --L. Pistachio 07:03, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What they said. A. J. Luxton 07:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity is one of the seven deadly sins, is it not? Zpb52 17:40, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 19:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge into Capital Hill, Australian Capital Territory; no clear consensus as to a redirect (a merge vote without more assumes a redirect, so I'm counting 3 votes to make a redirect and 4 to delete without one). I see no harm in a redirect from a likely spelling error. -- BD2412 ^talk July 6, 2005 03:20 (UTC)

[edit] Capitol Hill, Canberra

Should be either deleted or merged with the correctly titled Capital Hill, Australian Capital Territory. Capitol is US spelling and is not used in reference to the Hill, which is spelt with an a as in Canada. Cyberjunkie ^TALK 05:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge anything useful with Capital Hill, Australian Capital Territory. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This one's my fault. Various government agencies, including the National Capital Authority use the 'Capitol' spelling. I checked the Parliament Act 1974 and found I was wrong. I would however argue that there is enough confusion over the name to keep the article as a redirect and move the information about siting the new parliament to the correct article. It may be a good idea to refer to the confusion in the correct article. The confusion is widespread enugh that Hansard itself (although not the parliamentary website) uses 'Capitol Hill'. The main Canberra article and a number of others will also need correction. I also think there's a case for listing Capital Hill on the Capitol Hill disambiguation page. Capitol is not a US spelling, but a separate word meaning legislative building. Alan 06:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any confusion over the spelling of "Capital Hill". However, it could be mentioned in the Capital Hill article that Burley Griffins' design included a design for a "Capitol" building to situated on a "Capitol Hill". However, that aspect of his design as never enacted, and Kurrajong (the original name for the Hill) instead became Capital Hill and home for Parliament. It should also be noted that Burley Griffin was an American. As for the disambiguation page, a "for similar/other, see" header could be included, but Capital Hill shouldn't be listed. I agree a redirect should replace the article (which would be obligatory if merged).-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 07:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(And the National Capital Authority does not spell it "Capitol"[5]; the page to which you refer discusses the design.) -- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 10:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge information to the actual spelling and make this into a redirect. Factitious 10:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge any useful information. Xtra 12:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge. Capitalistroadster 17:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge. Toasthaven 28 June 2005 16:39 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect - as a Canberran I would not have been able with certainty to spell the name of this hill and I drive around it several times each day. I think the confusion could easily arise due to the naming on Burley Griffin's plans. These days there is apparently only one Canberra based business calling itself Capitol but I am sure there were more twenty or so years ago and the confusion was more prevalent.--AYArktos 4 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 01:59 (UTC)

[edit] Rant

Is a dictdef which a page in Wiktionary already exists... bottom links also look more like web advertising rather than informative links. 'Delete.Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It's not even a good dicdef, and I can't conceive of anything that could go into this article that would change its dicdef status. Except for maybe links to examples of rants - but that would need deletion too. The Literate Engineer 08:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I could totally see this being a great article. Ranting as comedy, ranting as propaganda, ranting for muckraking, street-corner ranting... SchmuckyTheCat 02:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:57 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly redirect somewhere suitable. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 11:44 (UTC)
• Delete. I could see this as a great article, but I don't see this as a great article, or even a keepable one, right now.--Scimitar 28 June 2005 14:13 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rant

Somehow this page was reinstated. Like someone said earlier, it's not even a good dicdef, and it would need to be modified even before being placed in Wiktionary. 136.165.114.215 22:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and start a separate Wiktionary article. The article consists mainly of a long unattributed Simpsons quote. Modular. (Talk.) 23:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there should be a Wiktionary page with this, but this isn't appropriate for a transwiki. Wcquidditch | Talk 23:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G4. Have tagged as such. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 00:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense, regardless of source. Gazpacho 01:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 03:00 (UTC)

[edit] Broken heart batmobile

Band vanity ("Post-emo-comedy-core"). No google hits. No evidence of notability that I can see. --Fastfission 05:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete under WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 06:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability and the free web space address doesn't help. --L. Pistachio 07:07, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, possibly vanity ➥the Epopt 14:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 19:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Fuzheado | Talk 05:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete by TheoClarke as attempt at communication --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 03:03 (UTC)

[edit] GPCG and GPCG2

Some sort of attempt to use Wikipedia as a forum to keep in touch about some internet community falling apart. Not an encyclopedia article in any sense. I sympathize with their difficulties, but Wikipedia is not the world's message board, it is an attempt at an encyclopedia. Fastfission 06:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - the internet is an ever-rolling stream; don't swim against the tide. An unusual entry. I concur with Fastfission Naturenet | Talk 09:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. This is speediable under the criterion: "Any article which consists only of attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title.", IMHO. -Splash 15:57, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Both under WP:CSD Articles:4. As for the "flip the switch" request, I think we should "pull the plug." Unsinkable 28 June 2005 19:36 (UTC)
• Delete it. Eric119 30 June 2005 02:08 (UTC)
• Wish we could help, but you shouldn't call a plumber when you need a mechanic. Delete Denni☯ 2005 July 5 03:59 (UTC)

Deleted.—Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 11:21 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete and no redirect, as redirecting out of namespace is deprecated. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 06:42 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking

Wikilinking is the name given to a pastime thought of by William Grigor and Byron Clark. . . . The first game on Wikilinking was played on the 25th June, 2005. Oh. Unverifiable, for a start. Delete. -- Hoary 06:14, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

• Delete non notable game. JamesBurns 06:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, then redirect to wiki. -Sean Curtin 06:38, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I removed info that made reference to the non notable persons who supposedly created the game. I'm voting keep because my friends and I actually 'created' the game described in this article months ago and named it the exact same name. And that my friends is too freaking weird and leads me to believe that there are other out there who have done the same thing. Also, its pretty fun to play. -ÅfÇ++ 08:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. wikipedia should be fun as well as informational and this game serves as a cool way to see how wikipedia is structured and how to use it to one's advantage. If anyone is aware of the short story "The Hypertextuality of Everyday Life", this game shows how everything is interrelated and how two seemingly different items are more similar than one might think. -Mkeller 08:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The game is based upon a premise that Special:deadendpages demonstrates to be false. Uncle G June 28, 2005 12:24 (UTC)
• Keep - a good article, concise and informative. Naturenet | Talk 09:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is already part of the Department of WP:FUN. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• By the way. It's unverifiable whether they were first, and I think it's called "Six degrees of Wikipedia". - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable as it is a very newly invented game with a small following, avoid self reference. Thue | talk 10:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this madness. Arguments provided for all Keep votes as of yet, BTW, are not valid reasons to keep an article. Also, redirect per Sean Curtin. — Phil Welch 13:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A similar article with a different name was just deleted a couple days ago. This is already covered under Wikipedia: N degrees of separation.
• Merge with Wikipedia:N degrees of separation and redirect so that people can find it in the Wikipedia space. DS1953 14:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects out of the main article namespace are frowned upon. Uncle G June 28, 2005 12:24 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see how this is less significant that many articles about internet activities, hoaxes, etc. newkai 17:29, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: an indication that this is not very significant is that "Wikilinking" gets under 1000 google hits. Any of the other items you mentioned which has articles probably has way more google hits. Thue | talk 21:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you consider it significant if it were a game at another web site aimed at getting from one of that web site's pages to another? Uncle G June 28, 2005 12:24 (UTC)
• Delete - We've got a bit of a blind spot when it comes to our own culture here, don't we? This is a bad precedent if it is kept. humblefool® 19:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. NatusRoma 22:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant with Wikipedia:Wikirace. A redirect would be fine too but not my preferred option. JYolkowski // talk 22:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Wiki Game
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Wikirace. While we're at it, why do both Wikirace and Wiki Game exist as separate articles? This might just turn into a good purge issue, as I found three roughly similar games in a five minute romp. There might be dozens of people who've "invented" Wiki games and stuffed them in here... Unsinkable 28 June 2005 19:46 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. Redirects out of article namespace not ideal. Eric119 30 June 2005 02:16 (UTC)
• Delete per Eric119 --Scimitar 4 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 03:06 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Kurimski

Vanity. 15-year-old who likes to fish and use the internet. Fastfission 06:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 06:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It's nice to have interests, but for the purpose of getting an encyclopedia article, it's non notable. Delete CanadianCaesar 06:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete user page.--GrandCru 07:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity --LostAccount 15:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete teen vanity. --Etacar11 19:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 06:57 (UTC)

[edit] Ineedhits

Corporate advertising; the page was created by the boss. -- Hoary 06:24, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As brought up on Talk:Ineedhits, what is the minimum size to be included on WP? Where is the line between notability and non-notable start? IMO, the article isn't written as an advertisement so it can't be deleted as advertisement. Perhaps not in the style of wikipedia, but that doesn't merit deletion. From WP:NOT I find this:

  Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Further all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs.

• Since Hoary put this up for VFD and JamesBurns vote delete based on advertising, I ask you two what exactly is not third-party verifiable...or did you not attempt to verify it? From the about page on their site, I find a lot of information that is verifiable on Ineedhits article (founder, date, location, . This page verifies that it's a partner. I'm sure more of it could be verified given the time. I see no reason to delete this based on the page being an advertisment. Cburnett 07:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't attempt to verify it. Yes, it's probably all verifiable, and it doesn't obviously fail any acceptability criterion. Odd, though, that a company whose business is boosting other companies' hits has to wait for its boss to create its own article on WP. (Couldn't any of its customers, etc., have done this?) Certainly it's permissible, even praiseworthy, to write articles about the business one knows best; to demonstrate the absence of a desire to advertise, ClayCook may wish to write or contribute to an article about at least one of his company's rivals. -- Hoary 07:58, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
    • How about Baker's Squre or Bennigan's or Blimpie or Lone Star Steakhouse or Macaroni Grill or Taco John's or Sbarro or Sizzler or Tastee Freeze? That's just some large restaurant chains (one's that I've heard of) and they don't even have articles. I disagree with your "if it's notable enough then someone else would have written it" test. Cburnett 14:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • I've never heard of any of those restaurant chains, but perhaps that doesn't mean anything: I guess that they're US, that you're in the US, and that they haven't yet arrived in the part of the world where I happen to be -- which might well be lucky from an urban design PoV. I don't think I wrote "if it's notable enough then someone else would have written it". The institution whose LAN I am now using -- my employer -- didn't have its own article when I first looked, even though I was sure that it qualified; precisely because I work here, I didn't supply an article. I waited a bit, and then returned to find that other people had written it. -- Hoary 02:27, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
• Surely to have an objective view some one other than the boss should write the article. I think this is an important point before even thinking about notability Delete P.S. Who made the unsigned comments--Porturology 12:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There are no unsigned comments here (yet). I think you may be confused by Cburnett's continuation of his comment (after a quotation from a policy page) in the form of a new list item. (This wasn't very elegant, but I can't think of a less inelegant solution.) Incidentally, while my gut feeling is of agreement with you, there's no rule that says bosses shouldn't create articles on their own companies, and also of course no rule that says people shouldn't subsequently edit bosses' articles in order to amend any perceived lack of objectivity. -- Hoary 13:26, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
    • Unsigned comments...did you even bother to read it? That said, there's no policies against bosses or employees creating an article about their company. It's big enough that I can't see how it's a "garage" company, so it's not advertisement. The only thing left is possible lack-of-objectivity, but that's not addressed by deleting it. In fact, WP:DP#What to do with a problem page/image/category specificially lists this as a reason not to delete. Cburnett 14:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion. Wikipedia:Autobiography. From the 'new page' edit window: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)." Niteowlneils 17:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to admit, that's a better reason than the initial votes per advertisement. However, I have to question the use of "promote". Wiktionary says: To attempt to popularize or sell a product by advertising or publicity.. The article in question is no more of an attempt to popularize or publicize than the thousands of other articles about a company nor is it trying to sell a product (I see very little "market-ese" in it) and I think I've established (or more correctly: no one has countered it yet) that it's not an advertisement. And, for the record, I have zero ties to ineedhits: none. The only reason I'm arguing on it's behalf is that I don't see there's sufficient reason to delete it. I hate to generalize and exhaggerate (as I'm sure there are exceptions) but it seems that you have to be a multi-national corporation or have a 10-digit revenue to not be deleted as advertisement or self-promotion. Cburnett 18:49, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd agree with you if the article hadn't been written by the company's owner. Add in the fact that this guy's company works to boost search engine results, and that creating these articles has the effect of – you guessed it – boosting search engine results, and you've got some pretty obvious self-promotion, IMO. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • The creation of any article goes to boost search results. Cburnett 19:15, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't have a personal stake in search results for, say, Jon Hassler. The same cannot be said for the creator of this page and the biography pages. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:48, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Niteowlneils. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:23, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotion. --Etacar11 20:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:NOT does say that Wikipedia is not advertising but it reads:

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Further all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with an employee of Baker's Squre or Bennigan's or Blimpie or any of the other restaurant companies listed by User:Cburnett writing an article on his or her company. The test should be notability and verifiability, not who wrote the article. I believe that ineedhits.com meets the standards for notability of a company and merits an article. Particularly with the awards cited by Clay Cook in his own article, the company is more than a "garage" company. DS1953 22:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Jimbo's stated that all that is necessary is verifiability. Cburnett 22:59, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If it's so freaking notable someone else (not the boss) will eventually write it up. If not, then maybe it's not so notable after all. --Calton | Talk 00:49, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Rewriting would be a useless duplication of effort and I'm sure this company is at least as notable as any given high school. — Phil Welch 04:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 11:45 (UTC)
• Can I suggest a Transwiki to Yellowikis. Yellowikis was set up to take this kind of stuff from Wikipedia.--Payo 28 June 2005 13:20 (UTC)
• Reluctant Keep: Cburnett, I am unable to find anywhere that Jimbo said that all an article needs is verifiability. In various places he's pushed notability, and nearly everywhere he's pushed NPOV. That is where this article might fail. You could possibly make an argument on advocacy, but would have to balance that with the fact that Wiki is effectively infinite. Also, saying that we should not have THIS article because other, better-known companies don't have one is fallacious, along the lines of "I'm not happy so no one should be happy." No one has made a valid Vfd argument for or against based on actual Wiki policies, so I see no strong reason to get rid of it. Unsinkable 28 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)
  • I quote from the above link: "It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion." Cburnett June 28, 2005 20:41 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. It needs to be rewritten at the very least. However, it exists and is somewhat notable. Falcon June 29, 2005 22:22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 03:08 (UTC)

[edit] Globalisation and health

This article is an essay/original research Bumm13 07:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete see reasons above Bumm13 07:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Bumm13. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Pavel Vozenilek 02:07, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was KEEP NSR 4 July 2005 10:55 (UTC)

[edit] International pen friends

article is a spam Wm 07:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertising. --L. Pistachio 07:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - spam Keep - it's ok now. Good changes, well done. Naturenet | Talk 09:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - legitimate and reasonably neutral article about a notable organization (which has 300,000 members, according to their website). In my opinion, it doesn't matter that the article was written by staff of the organization. Sietse 10:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep legitimate organization (per Sietse). I removed some more POV. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Provides details on a legit organisation which can boast over 300,000 members - Why delete? The fact that it may have been created by the staff of the organisation is immaterial. Forbsey 12:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable organisation with large membership. Well done, MacGyver Magic. Capitalistroadster 17:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep improving Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 08:02 (UTC)
• Keep but fix title (capitalization seems incorrect). Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 11:46 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)

[edit] Casey's revenge

There's not enough notable content in this page to retain it. Naturenet | Talk 09:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Platform for link. Delete- Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just being used to promote the website it links to. --Etacar11 20:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:59 (UTC)
• Delete. Falcon June 29, 2005 22:27 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 11:56 (UTC)

[edit] Ranao

Article says the comic was first published on May 30, 2005; it is so new that it can't be notable. Thue | talk 10:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable, blatant spam. Alphax ^τεχ 10:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Found no related google hits. Forbsey 12:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable comic promo. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:00 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)

[edit] Ramcharitamanas

This article, which is presumably in Hindi, has been on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation for two weeks. It has not been translated in that time. The title suggests that it may be about a poem or an excerpt from a poem. Sietse 10:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comments copied from WP:PNT (not votes)
  • Hindi? Eugene van der Pijll 17:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, at least according to this article. — Ливай | ☺ 23:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The text appears to be available on WikiSource, although my Hindi is not good enough to be sure. Physchim62 19:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic, content duplication from wikisource. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:00 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 03:09 (UTC)

[edit] Silencio

Page is a rumour about possible future Red Hot Chili Peppers album title, no source. Delete: Wikipedia is not a fansite nor rumoursite. Jamster 11:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with sentiments of Jamster. Forbsey 12:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete love RHCP, but this is pointless and useless. --Etacar11 20:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Silencio is the name of a company that makes earplugs, if I recall correctly. Could the page be refactored thusly instead of deleted? — Phil Welch 04:26, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speculation, wikipedia is not a rumour mill. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:01 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)

[edit] Gri logo code

This article consists of the source code of a small program in gri. Wikipedia is not a collection of source materials. Sietse 12:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons stated by Sietse Snel. You (Talk)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Deleted. Hedley 3 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)Probable hoax. Google, Yahoo, AllTheWeb and AltaVista all return nothing for Freaknotes Moloch Neill, and for "Existential enterings". Besides that bit about David licking his dog's nether regions, and thinking he's Colonel Sanders can't be for real. Can it? — P Ingerson (talk) 13:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freaknotes

• Delete near certain hoax. I hope so anyway, or the last sentence might meet WP:MUSIC. -Splash 17:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity at best. Nothing on allmusic. --Etacar11 20:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable garage band vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:02 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Deleted. Hedley 3 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)

[edit] Wela , Elisabeth Wierzbicka

• Deleteonly 300 google hits, aticle is mostly non-sense Billhpike 13:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and nonsense that I can't make any sense out of. I get only 4 Google hits for "Elisabeth Wierzbicka Wela". -Splash 16:26, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

And delete the redirect, too — surely we can do that without going to RfD? -Splash 16:27, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity, even when written by a critic. --Etacar11 20:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. According to [6] she has an impressive list of exhibitions, and seems to be relatively well known in Europe. I've found that Google is a poor indicator of notability for artists. Pburka 2 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 03:11 (UTC)

[edit] Sustainability and the straws that broke the camel's back

It's an essay. An essay that makes some valid points, yes, but at best it's original research, and it's not encyclopedic. Any useful material here can be copied into Sustainability and/or Tragedy of the commons, I think. DS 14:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research, i.e., "untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication." Sunray 15:06, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR - the articles the nominator mentions do the job just fine for me. -Splash 17:50, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, hopelessly POV. pstudier 22:22, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Delete as per Sunray. Pavel Vozenilek 01:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 03:12 (UTC)

[edit] Kristinagavrilovic

Standard-issue bizarro vanity page. DS 14:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. Vanity, non-notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:43, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Delete personal attack as I read it. David | Talk 19:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/joke/personal attack (incest?) --Etacar11 21:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Poor attempt at Joke --C64 29 June 2005 13:08 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 03:13 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Spink

Delete:Vanity. Does not assert notability. User has been trying to spam this into 1988 as well. Wikibofh 15:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, vanity. Especially for trying to spam other articles. -Splash 16:24, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity -- but "spam" is a strong word. Don't bite the newcomers. Cleduc 17:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn contentless vanity. --Etacar11 21:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:05 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. Hedley 3 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)

[edit] KDIS

There really is no substance to this article, except to point out it is a radio station and use as a platform for an external link...and possibly to get rid of a red link on the LA Radio template. No need for it. I say delete.--Zpb52 16:02, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Most radio/TV stations are notable in and of themselves; plus, fewer red links is always a good thing. -- Grev -- Talk 01:04, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. — RJH 03:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. As notable as your local high school. — Phil Welch 04:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Grev & Phil. Unsinkable 28 June 2005 20:20 (UTC)
• Keep. Good stub for expansion. Unfocused 29 June 2005 00:38 (UTC)
• Keep Golden Age of Wireless. Klonimus 2 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 11:33 (UTC)

[edit] Sizem

Apparent vanity page by a group of spraypaint taggers in Adelaide, Australia. Not notable. I don't think this is speedyable by policy, so here it goes. Antandrus (talk) 15:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Antandrus (talk)
• Delete graffiti. -Splash 17:48, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:05 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 11:35 (UTC)

[edit] Nix.co.il

Non-notable vanity. It's a page for a web address used mainly by an IRC network which peaked at 107 users. I suggest deletion. Kevin 16:00, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: It has some notability. Wouldn't hurt to leave it around. --Zpb52 16:04, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, self-promotional. Wikipedia is not a Web (or IRC) directory. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:06 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 11:49 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete all as linked bandvanity. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)

[edit] Gebaude

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC guidelines (google hits all seem to point to a venue in Germany); promotional. Delete Jersyko talk 16:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Seems quite unnotable. As a note, it seems "Gebäude" is the German word for "building", which makes searches very difficult. MTV.com, however, has no record of this band. -- Cabhan 16:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment neither does Pitchfork or any other indie music site as far as i can tell, for that matter. - Jersyko talk 16:37, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Wrong title. Move to Gebäude if notable, otherwise delete. Martg76 21:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. Nothing at allmusic.com. --Etacar11 22:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Gebäude and expand. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:08 (UTC)

  Expand? +sj +

• Reduce to a brief one-paragraph description and non-hyperlinked listing of their albums, on a suitable metapage about this genre of work. Then delete. None of these pages need their own article... somewhat promotional, but also some useful content (such as their logos and cover art). +sj + 3 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to reiterate my point that this band (and thus their albums) does not meet any of the 7 WP:MUSIC guidelines and my call for these articles to be deleted. Do you have some evidence of notability that i'm not aware of? - Jersyko talk July 3, 2005 14:23 (UTC)
• Strong Delete; can't find anything on the band, albums, artists or songs anywhere -- even tried calling work buddies in the Chicago Office. Possible hoax, definately nn. All linked album pages should be deleted too. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish July 5, 2005 23:39 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted on 7 July 2005 by FCYTravis

[edit] Gebäude

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC guidelines; promotional. Delete. Jersyko talk 16:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as artist themselves don't have an article. Hedley 16:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment actually, check out Gebaude; also up for deletion. - Jersyko talk 16:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity/promotion. --Etacar11 22:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Gebaude, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Schlafenszeit, etc. All pages linked from the album listings at Gebaude have been put up for VfD. Further comments at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Gebaude. +sj + 3 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted on 7 July 2005 by FCYTravis

[edit] Schlafenszeit and Warnung!

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC guidelines, promotional. Delete. Jersyko talk 16:16, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 22:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment See also Erfahrungsaustausch and Erfahrungsgemaß... and Gebaude which was briefly deleted by Hedley... These should all be decided together. +sj + 3 July 2005 04:25 (UTC) Further thoughts at the main VfD discussion for the group, at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gebaude

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 11:40 (UTC)

[edit] Ravi Handa

Vanity page. Should be deleted. Groeck 16:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wow, poorly written too. Vanity. Satanicbowlerhat 16:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Sietse 17:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is so obvious this sort of garbage should be speediable.-Splash 17:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity nonsense. --Etacar11 22:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:09 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 13:43 (UTC)

[edit] Rogue valley motocross

Advertising. smoddy 16:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. — P Ingerson (talk) 16:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spamvertising. -Splash 17:45, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. --GrandCru 19:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:10 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted on 7 July by FCYTravis

[edit] An Untitled Album and Erfahrungsgemaß

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC guidelines, promotional, the albums haven't even been released yet. Delete. Jersyko talk 16:29, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete more nn vanity/promotion from these guys. --Etacar11 22:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 13:49 (UTC)

[edit] Clothpate

Neologism. --W(t) 16:31, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC) Delete. Of no value. Deb 16:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Dic def. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete either dicdef or neologism - it gets a single (unique) Google hit from Slashdot. -Splash 17:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Pavel Vozenilek 02:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:11 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 13:51 (UTC)

[edit] Drake Clark

College kid whose apparent only claim to fame is being an ex-boyfriend of someone that appeared on American Idol.[7] Niteowlneils 16:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Sietse 17:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Cleduc 17:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nnanity. -Splash 17:41, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• 37 Google hits. Not enough to warrant an article, but enough to win my Delete non notable vote. CanadianCaesar 21:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nope, that does not make you notable, young man. --Etacar11 22:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:11 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)

[edit] Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh

Delete This is not an article. This is a badly worded sentence. Delete unless someone writes a real article, or redirect to Candyman. Jersyko talk 00:59, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It is a tiny atricle, the person who wrote it doesn't understand punctuation and it's far far too small. Jordan999 18:23, Jun 26, 2005 (BST/GMT)
• Keep article about a film in a notable series. Appears on IMDb ok. I've tagged it for {{attention}}.-Splash 17:40, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not an article. --W(t) 17:42, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Speedy, short article with little or no context. Wikipedia could use an article on this film, but if someone were inclined to start one, this bit of text would be completely unhelpful; as such, it's best to start from scratch. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic, almost a speedy with its lack of content. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:12 (UTC)
• Redirect to Candyman. That article now has a paragraph on this sequel, which is a paragraph more content than this article has. -Sean Curtin June 29, 2005 05:33 (UTC)
• Redirect Rast July 6, 2005 15:37 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 13:54 (UTC)

[edit] List of art galleries

1) one gallery is listed. 2) hasn't been expanded since created Aug. 8, 2004. 3) galleries are mostly covered under Category:Art museums and galleries. sparkit (talk) 16:50, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - adds nothing that the category doesn't already do, and appears unused by those editors most likely to use it. -Splash 17:38, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above with no prejudice against a complete list sorted by country. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:50, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Should be handled by fine grained categories. Pavel Vozenilek 02:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintainable. My website has a list of all the galleries within 50 miles on my home, and that's damn near unmaintainable. And someone wants a list of all the galleries on the planet? Sheesh - good luck! Grutness...wha? 28 June 2005 05:10 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. Hedley 3 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)

[edit] Elton John's Greatest Hits - Volume II

This is only a list of songs on an album, not an article. —MICLER (Мыклр) 16:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite seems appropriate. Delete what exists and get an actual article on this. Satanicbowlerhat 16:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Greatest Hits" albums do not release new songs; therefore there is not much to say about them. —MICLER (Мыклр) 17:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: And it's "Volume II," so shouldn't it all be in one article if we keep it? —MICLER (Мыклр) 01:34, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep now that there's an explanation on the page, not just the list with no text. —MICLER (Мыклр) June 28, 2005 14:11 (UTC)
    • Move to Elton John's Greatest Hits Volume II since there's no dash on the album cover. —MICLER (Мыклр) June 28, 2005 18:53 (UTC)
• Rewrite and Wikify...a photo of the album cover would be nice. Plenty of albums have their own wiki entries, why should this one not? Zpb52 17:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - because a 'greatest hits' album isn't really an important canonical element in itself. Any of Elton's original studio albums would be an appropriate subject, but not this; unless it could be shown to have a cultural relevance in itself. But it couldn't .. :D jamesgibbon 18:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep Valid start. The best way to get better articles is to keep the ones we have. I think the history of Wikipedia demonstrates this rather well. CalJW 18:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful start, easier to cleanup than delete, and less newbie-biting. Kappa 21:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly a stub (and labled as such) and clearly a notable album by a notable performer. The fact that it needs lots of work is not in and of itself a reason to delete it. Gblaz 23:31, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This album charted reaching #21 on the Billboard charts in 1977 and is a notable album by a notable artist. It contains three hits not found on his studio albums in "Philadelphia Freedom", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "Pinball Wizard" from the Tommy movie. Capitalistroadster 23:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Many artists release multiple greatest hits albums. Just needs some rewriting. --Madchester 03:47, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
• Keep. Page does no harm. Dmn / Դմն 28 June 2005 16:59 (UTC)
• Keep Good album stub. Unfocused 29 June 2005 00:39 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Les pieces d'auto Lacasse

Article about a certain car repair shop. This vfd also includes related articles about the owners Pierre-Marie Lacasse and Jocelyne Lacasse, founder Gérard Lacasse, and the numerous redirects Lacasse Auto Parts, Les pieces d'auto lacasse, Les pièces d'auto lacasse, Les pièces d'auto Lacasse, Lacasse.

1. Delete - Non-notable. ~~~~ 17:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Sietse 17:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I had these on watch to do it about now, actually. Glad to see someone took the initiative. Notability clearly not established. Did you get all the redirects there too? Mr Bound 18:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and transwiki the genealogy information to Wikitree DS 19:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:13 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 14:04 (UTC)

[edit] Alister Gould

No person of this name, but the biographical details in the article seem to match those of Benjamin Apthorp Gould. Looks like the editor was confused (or perhaps malicious). Gdr 17:18, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

• Delete Benjamin looks like the correct name, since the National Academy of Sciences has an award named after him. Editor confusion (nickname, perhaps, although I see nothing to indicate it)? --Etacar11 22:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How "Benjamin Apthorp Gould" became "Alister Douglas Gould" is completely inexplicable, but it's pretty clear that's what happened.--Pharos 29 June 2005 06:13 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 14:59 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Mac Geek

Delete non-notable podcast, under an implication from WP:NOT a web directory. This gets 16 unique Google hits. -Splash 17:18, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - promotional JoJan 20:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs played at sporting events

This list is absolutely worthless. Only one other article, List of songs links to it. Perhaps creating a category would be a better option, but this one needs to go. I say delete.--Zpb52 17:19, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unmaintanable and not-encyc. This should go the same way as List of songs played at dances...you'll never guess....it's made by the same author. -Splash 17:57, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton#IMPORTANT_development and turn your attention towards helping. Uncle G June 28, 2005 11:27 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but rewrite and a criteria must be set for inclusion. I don't think this list should just be of any old songs, but rather of songs specifically associated with sporting events, such as "Charge!" for Hockey events, or "Take Me Out to the Ballgame". Just because a sporting event uses a top-40 song like "Whoop There it Is" doesn't mean the song should be listed otherwise, as Splash says, it becomes unmaintainable. 23skidoo 18:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. The list could conceivably contain every song ever recorded. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 18:49, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--GrandCru 19:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per AиDя01D and Splash. Perhaps an article could be written on the practice of playing music at sporting events, players having "theme songs" to trumpet their entry on the field, etc. But this list would be unmaintainable. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:33, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Delete. I have no problem with an article about songs associated with sports (e.g. We Are the Champions and You'll Never Walk Alone), but this article is too broad, unencyclopedic and unmanageable. Aecis 19:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable. Radiant_>|< 21:06, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable. Christiant 22:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • ...unable to ... resist ...mustmakearticle... on... music at sporting events... no point in a redirect, tho. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:44, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintianable. Pavel Vozenilek 01:59, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:14 (UTC)
• Nice idea, but delete as too broad and unmaintainable. There might be some hope for the idea, though. - Lucky 6.9 30 June 2005 02:23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 15:01 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Knight

Vanity bio, uni student non-notable by any test. "One time he saw a blimp" says it all. Cleduc 17:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know, man...seeing a blimp is pretty danged notable. ;-) That being said, delete!!!!!!!!!! Zpb52 17:30, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it was a fat bird! Delete. Pburka 19:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nnanity. He shares a birthday with Voltaire. Wow. -Splash 17:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Let's see, +20 for humor, but -1 million for self-reference: delete. humblefool® 19:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - attending demonstrations is not a sign of being notable JoJan 20:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity Christiant 22:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, and not really that funny. --Etacar11 22:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article doesn't establish his notability, and it wasn't even a real blimp. Factitious 03:11, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:15 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 15:04 (UTC)

[edit] Snappertronics

Delete non-notable dubbers (?). Gets 16 unique Google hits, and the article is so short it could very possible be speedied anyway. -Splash 17:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - what is the point of this article? Zpb52 17:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 20:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no content at all. Isn't this speedy? Pavel Vozenilek 01:59, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable almost a speedy candidate. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:16 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Rossami (talk) 9 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Rojas

Not notable. --W(t) 17:55, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

• Delete, I agree jamesgibbon 18:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not a notable person. --GrandCru 19:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dittto Christiant 22:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Pavel Vozenilek 02:00, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Engadget is one of the more popular technology and consumer electronics blogs out there... with Rojas being editor in chief. Otherwise, he can simply be mentioned in the Engadget article. --Madchester 03:49, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Google returned over 700,000 hits.[8] --Kross June 29, 2005 05:39 (UTC)
  • A search for "Peter Rojas" returns 145,000 articles on google.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 15:10 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Francis Coldrick

Not notable. --W(t) 18:05, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

• Delete Not a notable person. --GrandCru 19:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Add back once his novel is published. Pburka 19:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable JoJan 20:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. No relevant google hits. Forbsey 21:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 22:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Forbsey. Pavel Vozenilek 02:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:17 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Rossami (talk) 9 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)

[edit] DC-17 blaster rifle

Delete and/or Merge. Not notable enough to merit its own entry. Blaster (Star Wars) will be fine. Ich 18:59, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not need its own entry. Can be merged with Star Wars articles. cptchipjew 19:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable fictional weapon, wikipedia is not paper, and there's no real need to spend valuable time merging it. If it has to be merged, DC-15 blaster rifle maybe. Kappa 23:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Notable fictional weapon? ON what planet. Oh right, none. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Extreme starwarscruft. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (orMerge and redirect if you must.) Beyond subtrivial. Sabine's Sunbird 04:01, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge both ALL models into Blaster (Star Wars). -- Jonel | Speak 04:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote modified by 29 June 2005 00:43 (UTC)
• Keep, the E-11 (and other carbines) have a separate page - the DC-17 should too.
• Comment I have added the info on both the DC-15 and DC-17 to Blaster (Star Wars). func(talk) 8 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)
• Redirect. Content already merged. func(talk) 8 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 07:00 (UTC)

[edit] Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat (demo)

There is already a better article - Dysfunktion 19:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or reidect--nixie 03:18, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as duplicate content. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)
• Redirect, it's basically the same article as Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat Cyclone49 2 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)

[edit] Savta

Originally posted on cleanup, I'm very doubtful about the encyclopedic value of this article, even after cleanup. An inspirational ode to savta's, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Aecis 19:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This article brings a tear to my eye. Therefore, delete, with extreme prejudice. I am a heartless automaton. Mr Bound 19:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 20:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete - It has been revised to more encyclopedic. It has some hope now. Give the poor thing a chance! Brandon 21:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • All of Brandon's edits are to the article or this vfd. --Cryptic (talk) 23:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Don't mergeFaethon666 21:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You're still around?! Delete the article, BTW. humblefool® 22:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary if it doesn't already have an entry (I can't tell, since I can't type in Hebrew to check). --Cryptic (talk) 23:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. Pavel Vozenilek 02:02, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You have to go back into the history to get the inspirational ode to savta's. I did, and it's well worth it. Awwww. — Phil Welch 05:04, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non encyclopedic. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)
• Not an encyclopedia article. Delete or move to Wiktionary. - Mike Rosoft 28 June 2005 11:31 (UTC)
• Delete or move to Wiktionary:en:סבתא --Pseudomonas 29 June 2005 13:11 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 15:13 (UTC)

[edit] Uncommon Sense

Original research (author has another original research essay on VFD at Sustainability and the straws that broke the camel's back. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:52, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

• Delete non-encyclopedic musing. Gazpacho 20:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (just so this is off the plate) and replace with an article about Uncommon Sense by Robert Oppenheimer. --Fastfission 01:52, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 01:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 14:54 (UTC)

[edit] Me gusta

non-encyclopedic; vanity page JoJan 20:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Good luck, Nasos. Gazpacho 20:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete can you say "advertisement"? Unsalvageable POV CanadianCaesar 21:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 22:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:19 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 14:51 (UTC)

[edit] Chak Estable

Blatant vanity. Tells a lot about father and grandfather, but his family and hobbies don't make him noteworthy. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:16, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable, absolutely no relevant google hits. Appears to be vanity. Forbsey 21:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Aecis 21:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete very blatant vanity. --Etacar11 22:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:20 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. Woohookitty 9 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)

[edit] Wingfic

Article is too obscure and should, at best, be merged with Slash Fiction, or deleted entirely 217.43.221.25 20:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Slash fiction, which would need a small edit to remove link to this article. Christiant 22:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The term is also rather obscure in the fan fiction community. I can't think of many communities using it anywhere. If it mattered more in the community or was pivotal to the community or the page did more of a rational for why it necesitated its own page... --PurplePopple 01:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per Christiant--nixie 03:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax? — Phil Welch 05:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Slash fiction. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:21 (UTC)
• Comment 274 google hits. func(talk) 8 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)
• Redirect to fan fiction. Seems a bit obscure to me as well. I have already merged the content from Wingfic to "fan fiction". func(talk) 8 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)
• Redirect to fan fiction. Seeaxid 9 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 14:46 (UTC)

[edit] The Centipedes

No notability established under WP:MUSIC. Delete.Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 20:28, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Davelong 20:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. Forbsey 21:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 22:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redir to centipede. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 11:52 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 14:44 (UTC)

[edit] Marcus dakers

No hits on google hence no verifability. Unless other sources are presented, this page must be deleted.Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 19:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Note: Creator blanked VFD and page, guess maybe should be speedied.
• Speedy Delete ...nuff said --Zpb52 20:45, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• If you google for marcus+geldof, you get a lot of hits, but none even remotely resembling Marcus Dakers. Perhaps a candidate for speedy deletion, but definitely a candidate for deletion. Therefore: delete. Aecis 20:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 22:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gblaz 23:29, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:22 (UTC)

Im the creator of this page, i guess you should delete it, dont bother with any more votes just delete it

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was KEEP NSR 4 July 2005 10:45 (UTC)

[edit] Clinical Cell Culture

This sounds like a cosmetics advertisement.

—Ghakko 20:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Looking at the website it appears to be a notable legit organisation. Forbsey 21:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, doesn't look like an advertisement. Kappa 21:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I created this article (to which I've just added {{stub}}), mainly on the basis that it was setup by Fiona Wood who is notable by most definitions and was given a significant award substantially because of her burns work which is tied directly with the company. It was certainly not added as an advertisement. Article could be exanded, but I just haven't had time. - Ian ≡ talk 01:57, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable company. Fiona Wood btw is Australian of the Year JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:23 (UTC)
• This sounds like a keep. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 08:03 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 14:39 (UTC)

[edit] James Bond Die Another Day Villains

Page just sources other articles. Full character list is on Die Another Day NickF 20:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - duplicates content in Die Another Day and individual character articles. 23skidoo 22:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate content, bad title, no redirect. CDC (talk) 01:31, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sloppy copy and paste of some already existing articles. K1Bond007 02:07, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as duplicate content. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:24 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 14:36 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for

Intended as a list of all votes in Wikipedia, but as such redundant with WP:CS. Also, it lists some things that aren't votes (e.g. "votes for doing nasty stuff to someone"). Radiant_>|< 20:59, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:11, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Oh, the irony of having a vote on a page about voting! Delete humblefool® 22:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gblaz 23:28, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Do nasty things to this article, like delete it. — Phil Welch 05:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 14:34 (UTC)

[edit] Feel & Sense: Intersecting Meanings

Original research Denni☯ 21:18, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

• Delete. Mr Bound 21:38, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 12:28 (UTC)

[edit] Tamim Al Jundi

Blatant Vanity Page Unisigned comment by Notanotheridiot

• Delete vanity. freestylefrappe 22:27, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity page. --Ragib 22:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like he does good work, but still vanity. --Etacar11 22:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm guessing this is family vanity, maybe a fond grandson. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:27, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:25 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to preserve GFDL. Rossami (talk) 9 July 2005 04:09 (UTC)

[edit] Substition

del. nonnotable neologism. Don't be fooled by thousands of google hits: all of them aren typos for "substitution". mikka (t) 21:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self-confessed (and probably fictional) neologism. -Splash 23:31, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment""" - How exactly do you determine whether a neoligism is "fictional"? Whether or not it appeared in publication within a work of fiction? Gemini6Ice 03:56, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this notable fictional neologism, failing that merge it with the book it comes from. Kappa 00:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Thief of Time. Substition + Pratchett gets 11 Google hits. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:04, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)
• Delete, neoligism--nixie 03:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Thief of Time. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:26 (UTC)
• Keep Move to Substitious or, failing that, Merge with Thief of Time. It is a neologism with in-print usage and a useful meaning. However, its presence is not widespread (as is the case for most neologisms), and the mention of it being a typo for substitution is a valid point. BD2412's Google argument is very convincing of the word's notability or impact. Gemini6Ice 29 June 2005 05:37 (UTC)
  • Additional Googling - Substitious yields about 47 results, all of which seem to use it contrast to superstitious [9]. I change my vote to the unstruckthrough text above. Gemini6Ice 29 June 2005 05:42 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. --W(t) 30 June 2005 02:54 (UTC)
• Redirect. I have already merged the article's content to Thief of Time. func(talk) 8 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 ambiguous.

The original version was a dictionary definition which had already been transwiki'd. According to the rules at meta:transwiki, it was immediately eligible for deletion at that time. The article was subsequently rewritten into a disambiguation page for various organizations using the name "Envision". I note, however, that none of the listed entities has a Wikipedia article yet. Looking at the referenced sites, it is not obvious that they ever will get articles. Disambiguation pages are for the disambiguation of existing articles. Using them as a back door to requesting an article is discouraged.

I am going to exercise my discretion and call this one as a "delete" but without prejudice against re-creation if/when articles about two or more of these organizations are written.

Having said that I am calling this a "delete", I further note that the community concensus after transwiki's is shifting from deletion to the use of the new {{wi}} template. In deference to that emerging concensus, I am going to modify my decision. Rossami (talk) 9 July 2005 04:21 (UTC)

[edit] Envision

Dicdef. Delete. DS1953 22:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Dicdef Gblaz 23:27, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef.-Splash 23:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Rewritten article to yield an encyclopaedia article about things rather than a dictionary article (that appeared to have been copied from the advertising blurb for the video player software, moreover) about a word. Uncle G June 28, 2005 11:50 (UTC)
• Rewrite article Please rewrite articles you find questionable is possible. Nytannon
• Rewrite article Uncle G has done some good work here. Needs a little formatting, but now encyclopedic as a disambig page. func(talk) 8 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to preserve GFDL. Rossami (talk) 9 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)

[edit] DAMM

As the article itself acknowledges, there is no such organization. There are just jokes (t-shirts and the like) about it. Delete as hoax. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, I've seen those shirts but it doesn't rate an article. --Etacar11 23:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oddly enough, "Drunks Against Mad Mothers" gets thousands of Google hits. I don't think it should really get an article, but toss a redirect to the Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving article and mention it in a section about criticism or references or trivia or something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:28, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Andrew Lenahan, though I personaly find the idea of this group rather offensive. 23skidoo 03:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • James Hetfield of Metallica was once pictured in the tshirt, I wonder if that's why it gets so many hits... --Etacar11 03:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Your reaction to it is precisely WHY so many hats, t-shirts and bumper stickers with this message sold. Still, delete it as non-encyclopaedic. There is validity in the idea of a mention on MADD, but I envision a flame war if one tried it. Unsinkable 28 June 2005 20:29 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:45 (UTC)
• Do not delete it is good to note it somewhere - this is why I use and love Wikipedia - to find some things which might seem irrellevant to anything, but some people do not know it and I find it helpfull that I can find some old humour and history of where does it come from, and recently I have started to use wiki instead of google, since pop-culture related facts are better explained in here. Dominykas Blyze July, 5, 2005 01:10 (UTC)
• Redirect. I have already merged its content into Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and included the bit about James Hetfield. func(talk) 8 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 12:24 (UTC)

[edit] TheMuzik.com

Article solely promoting a commercial website.

• Delete: Commercial promotion, vanity. --Ragib 22:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a webdirectory, not a place for advertising. -Splash 23:33, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:45 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. Scimitar 4 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)

[edit] CableLabs

None Notable page, that appears to be an advertisement for the company. Jtkiefer 20:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree on basis it appears to be a vanity page, which may further have been created to further own interests of aforementioned company. Whitehorse1 21:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hedley 22:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep after NPOVing. This gets 83,000 Google hits, and it's not like it would be often out there with the particular omission of the space. -Splash 23:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. At least as notable as your local high school. — Phil Welch 05:13, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on improving Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 08:04 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs expansion, not deletion. Factitious June 28, 2005 08:48 (UTC)

If this is actually an attempt at an article then I agree but at the moment it seems that this appears to be a quick blurb of an advertisement for the company.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 12:22 (UTC)

[edit] Volknine

Had been tagged for speedy deletion with a reason of "neologism, dicdef", but this is not a speedy criterion. I do agree with the Delete nomination Gblaz 23:17, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - betting this is an attack page against Mr. Volknine. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:28, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Comment. You've got borderline dicdefs that need the careful loving attention of VfD to make sure it's not just badly written or misunderstood, and you've got this. I'm afraid I feel compelled to tag such things as speedies even though I know admins strictly speaking cannot delete them; if someone else wants to make a VfD out of it, that's fine too. 82.92.119.11 23:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete garbage. -Splash 01:50, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, personal attack. Pavel Vozenilek 01:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete personal attack. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:46 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 12:18 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Felton Brothers

Non-notable, has zero Google hits Gblaz 23:20, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no claim to notability. --Etacar11 00:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, vanity. -Splash 01:50, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:47 (UTC)
• Genealogy, plain and simple. I'd have said "Get thee to Wikitree!", as usual, but it's already there. Delete. Uncle G June 28, 2005 12:43 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 12:16 (UTC)

[edit] Elbert Bell Brothers

Non-notable, recites no notability and has zero Google hits. Gblaz 23:23, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. -Splash 23:37, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, genealogy. --Etacar11 00:07, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable genealogy. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:48 (UTC)
• Genealogy, plain and simple. I'd have said "Get thee to Wikitree!", as usual, but it's already there. Delete. Uncle G June 28, 2005 12:43 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Evins (Segway General Manager

you will learn more about the enigma that is Chris Evins, delete--nixie 23:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:09, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• you will learn more about the enigma that is Chris Evins -- Not if I can help it. Delete. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, — the Wikipedia crystal ball appears to have been used to construct the notably-vain article. -Splash 01:52, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy the enigma that is this article. — Phil Welch 05:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:48 (UTC)
• Delete, {{PotentialVanity}} has been on the page for a while and nobody has come along to establish natability. Joe D (t) 28 June 2005 12:12 (UTC)
• Delete Can't wait to learn about this enigma. Ashibaka (tock) 1 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 12:14 (UTC)

[edit] InterNutter

Somebodies quake id. Was up for vfd in Arpil but attracted no attention, delete--nixie 23:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - embarassing that this nonsense has been hanging around since April - thanks for catching it. CDC (talk) 01:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It hasn't. You deleted an article about a female author on 2005-04-21. This article was created on 2005-06-24 about a male games player. Uncle G June 28, 2005 12:50 (UTC)
• Delete for obvious reasons. -Splash 01:53, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, oh my ... Pavel Vozenilek 01:57, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:49 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly vanity. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 19:22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirected to Steps. Hedley 3 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Latchford Evans

Lee likes the Backstreet Boys and Steps, I would have moved it to a user page but it was created by an IP, vanity, delete--nixie 23:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (unsigned vote by 195.93.21.104)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete nnanity. There are 900-some Google hits, but none appear to be this person. Until Google picks up this article...-Splash 01:54, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:50 (UTC)
• Comment Lee Latchford Evans was actually in the pop group Steps. They did split up several years ago though but he was definitely in a pop band, not just someone who likes Steps Candice 1 July 00:59 (UTC)
  • Missed that, good catch. But I would still say not notable on his own. This article is highly unencyclopedic. Any relevant info can be merged into the Steps article. --Etacar11 1 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)
• Keep, a member of a well-known band is obviously going to be verifiable and encyclopædic. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 10:05 (UTC)
• I've redirected this to Steps as it only makes sense, seeing as he was in the group. Hes a sort of Z-lister in the UK, so any new article shouldn't be treated as recreation of deleted content. Hedley 3 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 12:07 (UTC)

[edit] Xyzhq

Some sort of gaming clan. The title yields 59 unique Google hits, few of which are related to the clan. NatusRoma 23:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. — Phil Welch 05:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable clan. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:50 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 12:08 (UTC)

[edit] Madville.com

The article gives little evidence of the notability of this website; it's just another site, as far as I can tell (and with an unimpressive Alexa ranking). Wikipedia is not a web guide. CDC (talk) 23:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "Madville likes to ban people that have an opinion". Wikipedia likes to ban articles that have a POV! (also nn) — Phil Welch 05:20, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV rant. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:51 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 21:33 (UTC)

[edit] Mac Computer Expo

A very long, unnecessarily detailed article about a fundraiser put on by a local computer user group. Not encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 23:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Read the article. It's a legitimate (albeit small) expo that had a number of exhibitors including Apple itself. At least as notable as your local high school. — Phil Welch 05:21, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there are quite a number of such expos. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 11:53 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be nothing of particular interest about this event. Quale 1 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)
• Delete. According to the website, there were 28 vendor booths last year. Doesn't seem large enough to be notable in the context of an encyclopedia. Sietse 6 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)

[edit] Sierra Madre Boulevard

Some roads are encyclopedic (think Fifth Avenue or Champs-Élysées), but I don't see any evidence that this one is; looks just like a zillion other suburban arterials. CDC (talk) 23:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment it sure would be nice to have a guideline on what makes an encylopedic road. Vegaswikian 28 June 2005 05:40 (UTC)
• Keep, looks notable enough. --SPUI (talk) 30 June 2005 18:51 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing in the article to indicate that this road is encyclopedically notable. Quale 1 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 12:12 (UTC)

[edit] Odd Todd

A pseudonym for a flash cartoonist that doesn't have an article, self-promotion, delete--nixie 23:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be established. Pavel Vozenilek 01:46, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - same as above CoolGuy 02:00, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete. However, the guy himself might be notable - he created some flash-style cartoons for the Cooks Illustrated PBS show, America's Test Kitchen, which also might deserve an article. I will look into this. humblefool® 03:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:53 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 12:11 (UTC)

[edit] SUTEKH (University of Sydney)

Delete unexceptional university clubs. --nixie 23:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable.-Splash 01:56, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable student club. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:53 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)

[edit] Chatters nexus

Has alexa rating of [10] about 5.3 million.... I think my blog is more notable than this. Delete. If this is deleted, the reference to it on Nexus should probably be deleted as well. Both seem like advertising/vanity. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:14, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete....please....delete. -Splash 01:55, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 03:54 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising, and author is also removing the VfD notice. --Dcfleck July 2, 2005 20:33 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Hedley 3 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander

Delete non-notable vanity. Google returns a single relevant hit, which looks like his own site. -Splash 23:50, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that Alex is also a Wikipedia user (or used to be), with various names as he kept doing various stupid things and then tried to come back pretending to be someone else. Adam Bishop 23:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep It is not a vanity page. Plank did not make it. I did, and I am not Alex. Try searching for "Alex", and you should get more results. He usually goes by "Alex", so that should work. --MichTheWeird 23:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: non notable, vanity --Ragib 23:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I did the google search, very few relavent hits even with "Alex" out of about only 270 or so. Either way, non-notable. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:59, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC) Speed deleted. See note below. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Do any of you voting "delete" even know what Alex's IP is? It is different from mine. I'm guessing you're probably just supporting him, right? --MichTheWeird 00:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't care if you're Alex or the Queen of England. This should be Speedied as an attack page, and if a genuine article about were to be written, I would vote to delete on grounds of non-notability. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Umm... did you not read my comments? I never asserted you were him... I based my vote upon non-notability... Frankly, I've never heard of him and google doesn't know much of him either. That justifies deletion now you should read up on some policy before you make any further pages/edits. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:14, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn vanity. As other comments above, my vote is regardless of who the article's creator is and is instead vote on article itself. Whitehorse1 03:20, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — I think the image and comments were put there by some horse's ass. The remainder of the page looks okay. But I don't think he's prominent enough to warrant a page, at least not yet. Sorry. — RJH 03:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - it's a stealthy attack page, check out the picture. humblefool® 03:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speed deleted as an attack page. The image in question: [11] Wile E. Heresiarch 03:57, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Hedley 3 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Butler syndrome

no relavent hits on google. Seems like a hoax to me. Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedied. JFW | T@lk 23:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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