The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Possible Hoax But defenaly hopeless POV Delete -- JAranda | yeah 23:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 13:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
NN & vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 00:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was ALREADY USERFIED, so I'll remove the cross-namespace redirect. - Splash talk 01:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. (Possibly speedy?) This appears to be a user subpage mistakenly (assume good faith) posted as an article. The contributor’s user name is Polyparadigm (see article history). ♠ DanMS 00:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This dicdef has already been transwikied to Wiktionary and can never grow beyond a dicdef. Delete. Angr/ tɔk tə mi 00:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. This doesn't preclude a merge. · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Acronym + advertisment ≈ jossi ≈ 00:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Sliver - The Best of the Box (already done). -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 14:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Duplicate article see Sliver - The Best of the Box Case 00:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
More slash fancruft. Didn't we just have a spate of those? The name gets about 2,000 Google hits (but many do not refer to this) and the site that it flogs has an Alexa page rank around 3.1 million. MCB 00:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 19:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not a encyclopedia article -- Mosesofmason 14:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising, Non-notable. See also DynamiContext™ and AdLink. Sean 21:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This entry has been transwikied to Yellowikis by User:Uncle_G's bot -- Payo 12:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as Probable hoax article. No hits on Google besides those linked back to Wikipedia. If deleted, needs some fixes as I think it has propagated to a few articles. khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Joaquin Murietta 05:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 19:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of imformation →Journalist >>talk<< 00:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. - Splash talk 01:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable? Abstain. -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 00:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Luigizanasi 03:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus (5 votes to delete, 3 to keep, 4 to merge into a list); therefore, I have boldly listified this entry into List of minor Biblical figures, and invite anyone interested to add names to the article as appropriate. BD2412 talk 00:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No assertion of notability. The article provides nothing more than his genealogy. Very minor Biblical character. ♠ DanMS 00:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge and redirect with either bisexual or bicurious · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It was suggested on this article's discussion page that the entry be either deleted or merged with bisexual. I've therefore brought this here - if kept, I'll make the POV changes I previously proposed on the article's discussion page. CLW 11:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable radio show. -- fvw * 16:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
DicDef, or neologism as none of the online dictionaries I consulted referenced the word. Anyway, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia Outlander 17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep -- JAranda | yeah 04:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Reason why the page should be deleted
The result of the debate was delete. -- Phroziac( talk) 01:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
no notability assertion, just another teen gang. Delete -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Complete nonsense. The show does not exist. The user who created this also modified [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Dragon_Ball_Episodes&diff=23802095&oldid=23740149 -- RattleMan 01:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as this is non-encyclopedic matter about an non-notable underground comic book. [ ] 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 01:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not enough votes. Relisting. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is mainly the personal opinion of the user Franck ver Stut on a topic already covered at New Chronology (Fomenko). The text is rambling, unencyclopedic and POV. The page was previously blanked and redirect to the main page on the New Chronology, but Franck ver Stut reestablished the page, calling the other one 'subversive'. As the page title is unlikely to be accidently linked to, it is better that this page is deleted Oswax 06:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Don't delete The anti-Fomenko article is but a massive damage control machination staged by history undergraduates in search of credits. Most of the counterarguments advanced thereof are non-scientific hearsay albeit orderly structured. Franck ver Stut --(preceding unsigned comment by 83.195.168.26 ( talk · contribs) )
The result of the debate was Keep -- JAranda | yeah 04:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply
An ordinary broadcast journalist. Does not appear to be remarkable in any way.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is an ad for a "non-profit community wireless metropolitan network locateted in Karditsa, Hellas." Even if it is cleaned up, it is not notable enough. -- Kjkolb 08:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Phroziac( talk) 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable. -- Jasonuhl 19:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Well, the numbers are 7d-3k which is above the two-thirds level. The debate itself is pretty standard AfD stuff, and there's nothing presented to suggest that a higher bar than usual is needed here. - Splash talk 01:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply
fail to meet WP:music -- WCFrancis 21:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn company, little evidence he owned it, no other notability claimed. Few, if any, Google hits. Dlyons493 21:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to exist any more. No claim that it was ever more notable than any quiz. Dlyons493 22:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash talk 01:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non notable keenspace comic, found here. Google search shows up nothing notable for this comic, Alexa does not mention it in the keenspace traffic report. Article makes no assertion of notability. Already exists at comixPedia. - Hahnchen 01:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
and 2. Will it still remain on the webcomic list despite the article being over in comiPedia?
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Webcomic, which I can't find online. Google shows up nothing to suggest notability. The link in the article sends me to furnation, where I'm guessing this comic must have originated from. - Hahnchen 02:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Rambling essay about chat room game, neologism, etc. — Mateo SA | talk 02:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable, unverifiable, original research, and/or nonsense - no Google hits - GTBacchus 02:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. - Splash talk 01:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Synopsis of non-notable episode of Saturday morning cartoon from 1991. FuriousFreddy 02:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy redirected -- Doc (?) 09:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
was tagged for speedy, but it's not Abstain. -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 02:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
tagged as speedy, probabaly not speediable Abstain. -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 02:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep (no votes, so defaulting to keep). -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply
somebody tagged as speediable, probably it's not, so sent to afd Abstain. -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 02:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was BJAODN and DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
None notable webcomic, found here along with its empty forums here. Alexa ranks the URL of which it is hosted at 1 million+. The article gives no assertion of notability and Google gives 25 results for "Edd Egg". The webcomic author is listed directly below. - Hahnchen 02:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Webcomic author, see directly above. - Hahnchen 02:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was MOVE to Wikipedia:List of TLA disambiguation pages. - Splash talk 01:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Could use more votes. Relisting. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 02:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page seems to be made redundant by
Category:3-letter acronym disambiguations. The only article in the main namespace that currently links here is
TLA, and that link should probably point to the category instead. If kept, this page should at least be moved out of the main namespace.
Ilmari Karonen
19:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
reply
Update: I went ahead and changed the link at TLA. There are now no more links from the main namespace. -- Ilmari Karonen 21:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Update: 132.205.45.110 added a move template to Talk:List of TLA-Dabs yesterday, but did not list the page at WP:RM. I have added the listing, and will add a note to the talk page pointing the discussion to here. Since the consensus currently seems to be in favor of a move, I'll go ahead and move the page if no opposing votes appear within a few days. Ilmari Karonen 11:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Who's your daddy?. — JIP | Talk 15:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy without a reason (though the talk page refers to needing cleaning). Since I don't think it's a speedy, it comes here instead. - Splash talk 02:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE and tell the sock puppets that "abstain" means "neutral vote", not "save from deletion". — JIP | Talk 15:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
was tagged as speedy, probably not Abstain. -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 02:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 01:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising for an random hosting company. AaronSw 02:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus, thus keep (but still marked as a copyvio). Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The ultimate example of vanity. Delete-- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 02:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- Cel e stianpower hablamé 12:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It's a page about sayings from "Wes," the person who probably created the page. Ben D. 03:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Maybe it's not about one person named Wes. Perhaps maybe it was made as a page for people in general, hoping that words by one person might make a whole bunch of people laugh. AlR. 23:20, 30 September, 2005 (EST)
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable imaginary city Cnwb 03:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Chevrolet SS - note that a number of the votes appear to be sockpuppets, and that there does not appear to be any salvagable material in the article that is not in Chevrolet SS. – AB C D ✉ 08:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The article's fundamental premise and whole reason for existing is incorrect. The false idea is that that the "SS396" is a separate model and not just an option on models such as the Chevrolet Chevelle or Chevrolet El Camino. Deletion is also recommended because the article also has incorrect statements and does not add useful information that isn't already repeated elsewhere.
The result of the debate was speedied as CSD A7 candidate. FCYTravis 19:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity, non-notable band member. Quale 03:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Chevrolet SS. The article SS396 used to be a redirect to Chevrolet SS396, which was redirected as Chevrolet SS per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chevrolet SS396. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page only serves as a redirect to a page which is recommended for deletion. Novasource 03:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep! -- Phroziac( talk) 01:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
By own admission, not notable Jwissick (t) (c) 03:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. This article consists of someone asking a question about the meaning of a French phrase. “Please tell me what's the English for "La docte ... ” The question was answered. Now let's delete it. ♠ DanMS 04:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete - author requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Highbreed. But please continue the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:MMORPG research. -- RHaworth 03:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks like original research. What is "Highbreed"--the word doesn't appear in the text of the article? Any chance of salvaging or merging? Paul Hope 04:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hey I did not mean that I am gonna move the whole page to wikitionary. I mean just some of the definition of terms. That's why I said I am going to rename it because It isn't really supposedly to be highbreed. Okay I will reopened it by the name of MMORPG
hey this is me again. Just wanted to remind you people that you can help edit my page since I already gave my username and passwrod. Okay
I vote undelete because the information quite interesting although, the page sure needs a lot of work from the experts.
Keep Hey the page is worthy. It's just that it needs more restructuring and editing. Keep Cursed user talk zoe for starting the deletion page. Grrrrrr
If you don't need a password to edit the page then why not do it then. It's your choice. However marijuana is everywhere.
1 What Wikipedia is not 1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia My article is not an encylopedia. Ahehehe 1.2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary Definiton of term can be relocated to wikitionary 1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought This is not my thought I don't even agree with soem of it. 1.4 Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine I am not an ad man 1.5 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files I don't even have pics 1.6 Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider Hey I am the one paying here and contributing 1.7 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Well it sure looks liek one. Ahehehe 1.8 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Hey, who will win in the election. Place your bets now! 1.9 Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors Then why did you censor my username and password. Hypocrites! 1.10 Wikipedia is not an instruction manual They should write idiots guide to wkipedia. 2 What the Wikipedia community is not 2.1 Wikipedia is not a battleground It is a cemetery 2.2 Wikipedia is not an anarchy It is dictatorship 2.3 Wikipedia is not a democracy It is corrupt 2.4 Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy We have no money to pay for bureaucrats! 2.5 Wikipedia is not a blog I agree. Anti - blog 2.6 Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Then why did you put a discussion room. arrggHH.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website NeilN 04:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied by [User:Petaholmes] as an A7 -- Doc (?) 12:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Gaming clan vanity. Quale 04:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn community vanity, and they even mention that they're not well known in the article. Delete with an AWP headshot. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 04:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable band. No all music entry, limited Google results and has only released one album according to the article. -- Kjkolb 05:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Small, non-notable brake manufacturer. -- Kjkolb 05:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. – Rich Farmbrough 19:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I don't know if it can be expanded beyond a dicdef. Weak Delete Tito xd 05:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 ( talk— How's my driving?) 22:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement and non-notable technology. (TRANGO and hypervisor) gets only a handful of Google results excluding Wikipedia mirrors and spam sites. -- Kjkolb 05:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. Rob e rt 01:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Rep of the singer gave permission for use (they didn't specifcy if that permission was compatible with the GFDL), but artist does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines, delete.-- nixie 05:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 18:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Obsessive Wonkacruft minutiae; nonencyclopedic. tregoweth 05:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website. 53 Google hits, most of which are pages on the site itself or blog ads. Reads like an advertisement. Quicksandish 05:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Regards Jon -- JonMax1 20:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC) (user's first edit) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Page is made up. "Stachnikov" gives only 2 (unrelated) google hits, no record of book on Amazon. See also listing of Stachnikov below. -- SCZenz 05:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Page is made up. "Stachnikov" gives only 2 unrelated google hits, no record of book on Amazon. -- SCZenz 05:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No Votes, No Consensus Karmafist 14:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I have been unable to verify that this writer or his works exist throught Google, but that might be because they are in Arabic/Hebrew. -- Kjkolb 05:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate wasSpeedy delete as single-person vanity
NN / Vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 06:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 07:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Disaster has rather flexible nomenclature. Thereby rendering this list unmaintainable.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Any song can be autobiographical to a certain degree.
The result of the debate was Delete Karmafist 21:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable internet slang, WP:NOT / Wikipedia is not .. a usage guide -- Mysidia ( talk) 06:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
According to the article size, this list renders unmaintainable.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The term laziness obviously has variable nomenclature; rendering this list unmaintainable.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 20:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
From the article, it appears that she has only written self-published books, websites and greeting cards. Kjkolb 06:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Single-person vanity.
NN/Vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 06:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Say bye-bye to Jordan. Vanity article. - Lucky 6.9 06:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete (socks disregarded) · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The creator of this article, WalterJKin ( talk · contribs), is also mentioned in the article as the inventor of the "DoubleSign Compatibility Calculator" at doublesign.com. It seems that this is an article about a particular company or website rather than about a distinct branch of astrology (and the capital letters in "DoubleSign Astrology" indicate a proper name rather than a generic term). This company or website might not be sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Google gives confusing results: a number of hits, but possible use of multiple domain names by the same organization or syndicated content? Needs further investigation. -- Curps 06:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Note this Google Search for "DoubleSign Astrology". When I run the search for 100 hits per page, I get "Results 1 - 76 of about 4,910 for "DoubleSign Astrology", indicating a lot of mirrors (4910 pages, but only 76 distinct pages). Some pages indicate a registered trademark: "DoubleSign® Astrology".
Similarly, a Google search for "double sign astrology" gets only 31 distinct pages out of 551 pages. -- Curps 06:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
DoubleSign Astrology is a branch of Astrology Hey guys... I'm Walter J. Kin, who happened to be founder of DoubleSign.com which uses DoubleSign Astrology as its main basis for matching people. DoubleSign.com, by the way, has more than 55,000 registered members. But I'd rather talk about DoubleSign (or New) Astrology. It's not my invention and is very popular among readers. Inventor of DoubleSign Astrology Suzanne White published her first book "The New Astrology" in 1985 and this book (along with 3 others that discuss DoubleSigns) sold in millions in 15 languages. You can check www.SuzanneWhite.com and Yahoo News about her.
I also mentioned 5 other astrology experts, bestselling authors that wrote books about combined DoubleSign tradition in
DoubleSign Astrology. As you can see on Google search for "DoubleSign" produces 14,600 results, search for Suzanne White, returns 38,000 pages. When I search for The New Astrology" I get 16,200 pages. Another search for phrase "New Astrology" returns 35,800 pages. In case it still seems as not enough to recognize DoubleSign Astrology as a branch - here are more Google results for this expression "Combination of Chinese and Western Astrology" returning 152,000 pages.
Source SuzanneWhite.com
Source AstroSoftware.com
The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Lukin is a muay thai fighter, according to the article. I have been unable to verify the article through Google. (Pavle lukin muay thai) doesn't get any relevant results and neither does "Pavle lukin". Also, I don't know if the accomplishments in the article would merit an article. -- Kjkolb 06:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web host. -- Kjkolb 06:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
so please don't put your fingers in something u have no clue about first learn about it and it's not that everything is on the internet well if u wan to see the proof why don't you call BRANKO CIKATIC OR PRESIDENT OF IAMTF FEDERATION AND ASK? so learn something now "IF IT'S NOT IN THE GOOGLE IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT REAL"
The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable DarbyAsh 06:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable actor. The "article" is just four links to movies on IMDB and amazon.com. IMDB shows only three of these, the other link is to amazon.com. The roles are non-notable (hotel clerk, bailiff, unnamed) as are the movies themselves. IMDB has no bio info for Coma, so there seems little hope of expansion. All of the google hits appear to be unrelated or else wikipedia or IMDB mirrors. The page is linked from List of Albanians, so that entry should probably be removed if this article is deleted. Quale 07:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable and will date DarbyAsh 07:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Free trade. Rob e rt 20:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable DarbyAsh 07:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I was unable to verify that this group, or one of its more famous members, DJWatchman, existed through All Music and Google. They didn't tour over a wide area. Also, they only released a few singles. -- Kjkolb 07:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Jwissick (t) (c) 08:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
nn bio. 202.156.6.60 08:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Fourth, invitational international showing would seem to me to be at least prima facie evidence of notability in the visual arts. Kdammers 03:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was deleted and redirected to Gang. — JIP | Talk 08:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This has no references and no meaningful google hits. If deleted, also remember to remove from List of street gangs. Thue | talk 09:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not verifiable, no Google hits. Wrong name or possibly hoax. -- Vsion 09:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This term has no google hits. Thue | talk 09:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP and MOVE to Zenith Data Systems. Rob e rt 21:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
non notable. its link to
zenith is actually something else
202.156.6.59
10:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. they only released one demo album 202.156.6.59 10:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was} DELETE. The first keep vote is by a user who has only four contributions, the second seems to be by the article's author. — JIP | Talk 08:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable gaming clan. 202.156.6.59 10:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete as a non-notable biography ( WP:CSD A7). Hall Monitor 20:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic; personal info that would be better on a user page. Nach0king 10:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
An alleged demo album of a non-notable band. 202.156.6.59 10:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Covers a single interview mentioning a hypothetical future game that is "[not] in production" and for which there are "[no] imminent plans of starting something". Fredrik | talk 10:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable concept, but perhaps someone could prove otherwise? 202.156.6.59 10:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Should be a term definition. The construction is logic as to "macro" just specifies the relative size to a micro- and subculture. reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 12:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Almost all of the article, including the term's supposed origin in Calvin and Hobbes, is unverifiable. Anville 12:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
NN Vanity. 202.156.6.60 12:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
NN vanity page. 202.156.6.60 12:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax, unverified. Google turns up two hits, both of them forums. -- Blackcap | talk 12:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link). (All refs so far have concerned the Victorian merger and if they mention the New Zealand one at all, I think it's mostly only as a tangent. I have some refs on the New Zealand merger but not immediately at hand, and haven't read them completely enough just yet. I may do so during after mid-October.)
Cassowary 2005-10-01 14:30:37 UTC (according to edit history.
Uncle G 14:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)) (yes, it was me —
Felix the Cassowary (
ɑe hɪː jɐ)
14:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC))
reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Guess who? Nn vanity bandcruft that fails WP:MUSIC completely. -- Blackcap | talk 12:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedied as A7 -- Doc (?) 13:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
No claim to notability.-- Carabinieri 12:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Potentially dangerous hoax. Google gives nothing for "patented weight cutting technique", and nothing for various spellings of "allen umberidgson". There are plenty of hits for "Tyrell Biggs", but though the article claims Dr Al is his trainer, there are no hits for "Tyrell Biggs" + "Dr Al". DS 12:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Would be vanity, but claims notability as creator of Tornado Os - which is itself up for deletion. If the creation goes, so too should he whose only fame is being its creator. DS 13:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus. (Will move to fix title.) · Katefan0 (scribble) 19:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
possible copyvio. 202.156.6.62 13:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was that nobody seems to want the article to be deleted in the first place. The nominator abstained, everyone else who expressed an opinion expressed the opinion that the article should be kept, and no-one came forward, after notice was given, wanting the article to be deleted. Uncle G 11:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hmm, the article itself is poorly written but I recall there is such a movie made by Andy Warhol. Perhaps a redirect will be appropriate? Abstain for now. 202.156.6.62 13:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. may also be copyvio. 202.156.6.62 14:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 13:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is causing confusion among admins. It was speedied once as a hoax (which can't be speedied except in extremis) and then as a recreated article, which doesn't fit the G4 CSD since it wasn't AfDd. Since Google returns plenty of hits, I figure the questions should be settled here. - Splash talk 14:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was BJAODN and REDIRECT to Cumulative distribution function. — JIP | Talk 13:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Looks to be silly vanity/nonsense Whitejay 251 14:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 19:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Very clearly unencyclopaedic, an FAQ or something into dentistry. Feels like a copyvio, but I can't find where from. [[Sam Korn]] 14:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hi, this entry was copied from my website www.simonjenkins.co.uk and is an attempt to explain to people what is actually happening in the real world. We are all familiar with government spin and dentists know that government is forcing them into private practice and then accusing them of going into private practice. For the full detail please see my website above, if you decide this is not an appropriate entry into Wikipedia then so be it, but it is the truth.
regards Simon Jenkins www.simonjenkins.co.uk
The result of the debate was No consensus. But may I suggest this is relisted or Transwiki'd anyway? R e dwolf24 ( talk— How's my driving?) 23:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The Swedish federal budget for 2004-2006. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. DS 14:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 19:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not a encyclopedia article -- Mosesofmason 14:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. -- Jacquelyn Marie 04:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Inaccurate. --posted by Beerbuzz on Ngoyo article at 10:37 UTC 1 October, 2005; reproduced here by Dvyost 14:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Two for one! Two different bands named Prussian blue, both apparent vanity, both crappy articles. The first one is an english band, with an empty entry on AMG but no other hint to WP:MUSIC. The second I'm not sure about. It's an "aryan pride" duo of young twin girls, who do claim to have done a national tour. I've tried, but can't verify this (nor do I know what counts as a tour, since they seem to be tied up with the National Vanguard organization). No AMG entry, hard to google. Because of this I'm only a weak delete. — brighterorange ( talk) 14:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 11:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
unverifiable: cannot find indication that two books 'cited' by author of biography exist, and his reply was useless; the Einstein biography is genuine but I don't think it makes this Folsing notable
CH
(talk)
15:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY USERFY. ~~ N ( t/ c) 17:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete (and protect page from being recreated). HappyCamper 16:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable character. User vanity etc. feydey 15:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete.
bainer (
talk)
00:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
reply
Created by a vandal. pamri 08:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for Emp3world.com Dlyons493 16:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 16:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE per precedent. ~~ N ( t/ c) 17:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Previously marked as a speedy, but I don't see how it is one. Similar-but-not-identical article deleted in June. Google on "wikilinking -site:wikipedia.org" gives 9000 hits, but on cursory inspection none seem relevant to this game. Delete unless proven to exist. ~~ N ( t/ c) 16:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to keep the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Verbatim copy from sections of Pandurang Vaman Kane and an unnecessary duplication as the articles have the same content while the titles suggest difference. btw, I am the original author of Pandurang Vaman Kane-- Gurubrahma 16:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). -- Ryan Delaney talk 02:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
No AllMusic entry, only album gets 171 google hits. Punkmorten 16:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 19:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I found this article by following a link on Talk:Joseph Blanchette. The link admits to cheating, and that article was deleted in this AfD. Whilst I have no opinion, I think this article should also been seen by AfD. Note that it is not speediable as a recreation, really, since it is a rewrite (just). - Splash talk 16:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP and MOVE to Coventry and North Warwickshire Cricket Club. — JIP | Talk 19:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-notable amateur cricket club out of many. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not the case. Coventry and North Warwicks Cricket Club is a long-established cricket club in the first ever cricket league in the world. It is also a club with a close association with arguably the most successful County side in modern times (Warwickshire County Cricket Club). Perhaps the relevance and importance of this imformation being on wikipedia is lost on a Canadian, but people's areas of interest are wide and varied and being so dismissive about information some people will useful and informative has no place on an Encyclopedia site. Keep. User:Chris W | 19:28 (GMT), 1 October 2005
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable school group formed in February 2005, no releases. feydey 17:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 02:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable defunct amateur team, heavy advertising angle Pete.Hurd 17:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 22:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Listed for deletion under Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion/XD1. Looks non-notable - "era flair" "buddy luv" returns 0 googles. ~~ N ( t/ c) 01:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
(Delete Does not come within a mile of WP:MUSIC CastAStone 18:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect to alternative lifestyle. -- Jacquelyn Marie 05:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Too broad a classification to be useful. Dlyons493 Talk 18:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was no consensus (thus keep); both articles are merged at The Million Dollar Homepage. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 00:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
There are two articles on the "Million Dollar Homepage", one at The Million Dollar Homepage and another at Milliondollarhomepage. Both are up for deletion and have their individual AfD subpages. It's probably better if both pages are discussed together. The statements from both AfDs have been moved here. Please add new statements to the bottom. Pilatus 19:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement page with no other content Naturenet | Talk 15:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply
It's Spam. Much and all as I'd like to see him make a Million Dollars. Dlyons493 Talk 18:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I hope no one minds, but I took the liberty to merge Milliondollarhomepage and Million Dollar Homepage into The Million Dollar Homepage. -- Chuck SMITH 16:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
if it is a worldwide talking point / event ? then surely it must stay , thats what encylopedias are about right ? if not what is the point of this site as well ?? to be selective about what it logs in human development and history ? that does not seem right ....
The result of the debate was Withdrawn/Keep Marskell 10:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply
An odd one. The name and the text are generic enough I can't prove it exists. The Royal Historical Society and the American Historical Association both have articles and this refers to neither (its cat'ed as a British Organization). Delete unless someone can prove what it is. Marskell 18:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Powergen Cup. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 00:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The data on this page has been moved to Powergen Cup as the Anglo-Welsh Cup is sponsored by Powergen the same as the old Challenge Cup GordyB 18:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Subject is non-notable. Subject has less than 100 google hits, and the majority aren't relevant. May be notable in the future, but isn't notable yet. It's also a copy-n-paste of a user page. Biography articles are usually better written by someone else. -- Interiot 19:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 11:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; it reads like a News-story. Additionally, the information is not noteworthy enough to be included on WikipediaThe result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Zero google hits. -- 202.156.6.61 19:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
It's just a family name. Pretty much everyone has one. Dlyons493 Talk 19:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 18:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply
No mention on allmusic, no Google hits for a band with that name. The name occurs 11 times on Google as someone's username on a webforum. Do I say "Garage band vanity"?
129.215.194.205
Pilatus
19:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Nonsense. ♠ DanMS 19:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I see no evidence that they fulfill WP:MUSIC. Joyous (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was 'redirect to Sranang Tongo. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 00:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete this article as a possible hoax. I can find no independent evidence that this language exists, least of all the claim of having the world's smallest lexicon. Googling "Taki language" brings up mostly hits of the Taki Taki language in Suriname, which is different. When I asked the creator of the article for sources, he provided me merely with a Wikipedia mirror. Angr/ tɔk tə mi 19:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE'. — JIP | Talk 05:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Doesn't look very notable. Deb 19:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Member of the above-mentioned band M.O.B., also up for AfD. Joyous (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This user created a series of advertising pages in a short time. Some of these are copyvio, some are close to spam, some probably wouldn't draw much comment as they are less blatantly promotional. I'd appreciate an Admin looking at the whole set of them. Dlyons493 Talk 19:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Stefan Selakovic. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
End moved text
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement Dlyons493 Talk 20:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Most likely non-notable autobiography. It's difficult to tell, because there are many google hits for "Christopher Webster". However, some amount of googling found practically no references to the "nationwide" "Porridge, at McDonalds?" quote, and I can't find any online biographiess for a Christopher Webster born on 1986. If someone manages to find real biographical information that can be used to expand this article, then possibly Keep. -- Interiot 20:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 05:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Admitted non-notable band: "Lost In Fusion a band that began in the summer of 2005 ,Compose just by 2 guys at the moment" 202.156.6.59 20:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
NN ≈ jossi ≈ 20:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Fancruft. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete as unencyclopedic road vanity. The last thing we need is a disambiguation page for every "Davenant road" in the world. [ ] 20:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was No consensus. – Rich Farmbrough 20:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete, possible candidate for speedy deletion (CSD A7). [ ] 20:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. NN-Bio, Vanity. I don't see a problem with speedy-ing it either.-- inks 21:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Keep. Just needs editing and restructuring. Paul Mijksenaar and his company Mijksenaar-Arup are responsible for the signage of JFK Airport and several other big American airports. So he is quite a name in the world of information design. [39] [ ] 13:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This isn't an article, it's a discussion of a fiction "work in progress." Joyous (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to validation. — JIP | Talk 05:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Dicdef, has been transwikied. Ingoolemo talk 21:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to Yogi Tea. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 00:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Transwikied to cookbook - can now remove from here.
Dlyons493
Talk
21:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
granddaughter of Franklin Roosevelt, no notability of her own established TimPope 21:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
PLEASE DO NOT DELETE! "No notability of her own established"? She is a direct descendant of one of our country's presidents. That alone garners interest. User:Mdiane ← user's only edit is this comment -- TimPope 20:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Article about a local radio show in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Not notable. Ariliand 21:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable Person. Just because she was Jay Leno's agent doesn't mean she is notable and qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Hell I work in the entertainment industry so does that mean I can have a Wikipedia article too? I think not. Misterrick 21:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy delete as single-person nn vanity.
This is just a page on a poster on a forum. No sense creating one here. ErikNY 21:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Minor blog site. Alexa ranking of 281,364. Joyous (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was redirect to UH-1 Iroquois. – Rich Farmbrough 19:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This article is a duplicate of UH-1_Iroquois Sylvain Mielot 22:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
I am not convinced Arne passes the average professor test. If the article were created today I'd be tempted to speedy it for not making any assertion of notability - however this article has been around since 19 May 2001 and has attracted only 4 minor edits since then, including the Conversion script and my addition of the afd tag (the first edit in over a year). There are a grand total of two inbound links.
Because of its age this article has been picked up by just about every Wikipedia mirror site going, making raw google hit numbers irrelevant. Almost all the other hits seem to be directory type listings. The lack of an interwiki to the Sweedish Wikipedia makes me doubt he is significantly more notable in that language, but my knowledge of Sweedish extends to one word - Igelkott ( Hedgehog) - so I cannot say. Thryduulf 22:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 19:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Besides verging on patent nonsense, this person/band/noise doesn't have an entry on artistdirect or allmusic. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
i made changes to the entry and will continue to add important info.
extensive updates have been made, with multiple links added.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 04:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Page begins: Akuma is a not really a part of the Mortal Kombat storyline and had absolutely no appearance in an MK game. Delete articles on non-existent video game characters. Quale 22:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 04:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Advertisement PhilipO 22:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Question: I followed this example Fotki - are articles about web portal considered an advertisement? -- WalterJKin 23:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 04:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Neologism, coined a couple of months ago. Joyous (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. This is nothing but instructions for mixing a cocktail. Wikipedia is not a “How-To” manual. ♠ DanMS 23:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete Very nice, but doesn't merit an entry in Wikipedia. PhilipO 23:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Delete. Two acronym definitions only, and dubious ones at that. Move to Wiktionary if the acronym is known. One definition is POV, the other does not seem to make sense. ♠ DanMS 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup -- JAranda | yeah 04:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Currently advertisement. Needs at least a major re-write.
Dlyons493
Talk
23:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 05:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable except for naming himself after Optimus Prime, the fictional robot. I don't understand how this survived an October 2004 vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Optimus Prime (person).-- Pharos 23:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Incoherent nonsense. It had been tagged as speedy but the user removed it. 202.156.6.60 23:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to allegation. — JIP | Talk 05:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not only is it a dictionary entry, see WP:NOT a dictionary or usage guide, but I think the article is also biased and inaccurate; in case the subject were encyclopedic, it would have to be rewritten anyways. -- Mysidia ( talk) 23:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Vanity and unnotable site. (No Alexa rating for those who care) Kushboy 23:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Appears to be non-notable. Ashenai 23:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to delete the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to contain any information not present in such articles as Shiva, Vishnu, or Trimurti. Furthermore, doesn't actually specify what Shrivatsa is. Shrivatsa may be a topic deserving an article (unfortunately, systemic bias comes in to play: I can't make that call, and I doubt many of us can), but this is by no means that article. The Literate Engineer 23:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertisement for worthy but nn organisation. realted to grassroots.org Dlyons493 Talk 23:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 07:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Incoherent nonsense. This article has been speedy deleted already but the user keeps recreating the page. 202.156.6.60 23:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Speedy redirect as non-notable. Thue | talk 19:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Not especially notable businessman. Dlyons493 Talk 00:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
Advertising for a blog. Wikipedia not a repository of links. Jkelly 02:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply