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. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 12:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not previously listed - no vote -- Doc (?) 00:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
I've never heard of "RiotPix", and even my site has a higher Alexa rank. -- Snafuu 29 June 2005 00:02 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. No consensus. I count Kusenose's, Steve Eifert's and Journalist's votes as deletes, Grutness and 23skidoo want merge and redirect, while Denni did what I consider to be the most sensible thing and redirected. There is nothing else that needs to be done. By the way, Journalist, please get that garish signature fixed. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 13:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
VfD never listed - no vote -- Doc (?) 00:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 13:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Completing VfD - no vote -- Doc (?) 00:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. No consensus on what to do here. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 13:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Tagged by RickK and sort of added to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sonic the Hedgehog The Movie: The Doomsday Project but never deleted, relisting for clarity, no vote. -- Doc (?) 00:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 13:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic. Dunc| ☺ 00:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED, by Geogre. - Splash 22:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
unverifiable, and non-notable. Delete-- Shanel 00:27, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep -- Aranda56 06:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC) reply
There are very few citations or footnotes for this article. It reads like self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.93 ( talk) 16:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply
VfD not previously listed - no vote -- Doc (?) 00:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Reads like a vanity page. Exploding Boy 00:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Another orphan VfD - no vote-- Doc (?) 00:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Should be rolled into main Starcraft article. (Author unknown.)
I can't find the right page for this one, but the subject isn't even in a canon book, so it shouldn't go into the main article. Instead, it should sit in limbo until someone does an article on Shadow of the Xel'Naga. (Honestly, that book was so crappy that almost no one will write one up. If that's the case, delete it.) Kimera757 00:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. · Katefan0 (scribble) 04:13, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Incomplete Vfd - no vote -- Doc (?) 00:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Just a no go-er Delete
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Kappa. — JIP | Talk 06:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic.-- Shanel 00:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Zscout370. android 79 01:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
non encyclopedic, and belongs more on Wikinews. Since we can't put it there, Delete. -- Shanel 00:49, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 06:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC) reply
was only founded last year, no notable artists on the label. Delete-- Shanel 01:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedied by Geogre. — Cryptic (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Article was created when I had made copyright violation in Blackstone River Valley. I've since corrected the violation. So the "…/Temp" article is unnecessary. Markles 01:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 06:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC) reply
non-notable band; they formed this summer! Vanity perhaps? Delete.-- Shanel 01:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedied by Geogre. — Cryptic (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Some party thing. It does have alot of hits on google though.-- Shanel 01:30, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
If anyone wishes to create an article about the gathering, please feel free, but the reasoning for this speedy delete was that the "article" was spam. Less than a line, then a link = spam. Geogre 03:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash 20:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced personal essay, full of existential fallacy. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied as recreated content by Rdsmith4. android 79 03:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Conspiracy theory text-dump. An article on terrorism carried out by governments may be worthwhile, but this isn't it. The author apparently objects to this being called a text-dump, but that doesn't alter its status as unsalvagable
POV.
android
79 02:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Government terrorism isn't State Terrorism - State Terrorism is unjustified wars - Government terrorism is FEMA- and CIA-committed treason on YOU, the average John Doe. But just John Doe, not JDNo.2 ~ Kandid - 03:36 4th of September 2005
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash 20:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
non-encyclopedic how-to. Probable copyvio, but I can't find a source. Brighterorange 01:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete and BJAODN Ral 315 22:38, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Joke article. Pretty funny stuff, though. To the page's author: might I suggest Uncyclopedia as a creative outlet? android 79 01:55, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Not much debate, not much point relisting. - Splash 20:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Apparently a player-created PC. Anything official about Faerun gets scads of google hits; "General Doli" gets 6. The first is a user on hrwiki. — Cryptic (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Hugs 4 You! - General Doli
This article needs to be deleted, and banned from creation in some way. Otherwise the nimrod will just keep reposting it until his 5-second attention span kicks in. - Anonymous
I totally agree, Anonymous. This nimrod needs to stop right away. There. Problem solved.
- Totally Not Doli
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 00:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC) reply
How-to article submitted by new user. I've already left him a note on his talk page about contributing this sort of thing to Wikibooks, but I'm not sure if they'll want this particular piece (it doesn't follow WP:NPOV--is that a drawback?). Meelar (talk) 01:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedied by Geogre. android 79 03:48, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable video game tournament participant. Originally marked for speedy under A7 by myself and another editor, but I'll take the repeated removal of the speedy notice as disagreement that this article qualifies for speedy deletion. android 79 02:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 06:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Despite the name, it actually list all members of the SquarePants family. They all have articles or are listed as minor characters. Delete-- Shanel 02:07, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. -- Ryan Delaney talk 06:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC) reply
Not notable. brenneman (t) (c) 02:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. - Splash 20:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC) reply
As best I can tell, this is a hoax. The only legitimate GWTW2 reference I found on Google is from a movie critic positing really bad sequels that Hollywood will make anyway (GWTW2 was suggested along the lines of American Pie, FYI). I'm aware of the GWTW parody The Wind Done Gone but this doesn't appear to be it. Gone with the delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:18:23, 2005-09-04 (UTC)