Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 4

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

Purge server cache

September 4

edit

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 SidawayTalk 12:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RiotPix

edit

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)

  1. Delete. Appears to be a vanity page created by a friend of the RiotPix's creator ([1] -- notice the similar IPs?). Eurleif 7 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
  2. Delete. Link ad. hydnjo talk 23:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Delete, vanity or ad. --Oppolo 00:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Delete, the only non-VfD link to it is in a "see also" section of Friendster. Breathstealer 09:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Delete per above

    Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  6. Delete vanity spam. Jobe6   00:40, September 5, 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 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 SidawayTalk 13:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Foster (actor)

edit

VfD never listed - no vote --Doc (?) 00:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Payne-Smith

edit

Completing VfD - no vote --Doc (?) 00:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 keep. No consensus on what to do here. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roboticizer

edit

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]

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 delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane relief in Pensacola

edit

Not encyclopedic. Dunc|☺ 00:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and everything else by 141.213.240.102 (talk · contribs)
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 SPEEDIED, by Geogre. -Splash 22:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billy hackett

edit

unverifiable, and non-notable. Delete--Shanel 00:27, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted by me. The "subject" falls under A7 -- a person with no assertion of notability (the article says he was just some dude) -- but the subject is really the author. He tells us a story about his mother. Whee! Geogre 03:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original article seems to still be there with a redirect. -- Kjkolb 05:11, September 4, 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 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]

Rose George

edit

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)

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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roverlisk

edit

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)

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 Delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:13, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Runal

edit

Incomplete Vfd - no vote --Doc (?) 00:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a no go-er Delete

I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 23:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 KEEP as rewritten by User:Kappa. — JIP | Talk 06:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chin-up

edit

Not encyclopedic.--Shanel 00:38, September 4, 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 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. android79 01:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Baton rouge migration

edit

non encyclopedic, and belongs more on Wikinews. Since we can't put it there, Delete. --Shanel 00:49, September 4, 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 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]

Town records

edit

was only founded last year, no notable artists on the label. Delete--Shanel 01:04, September 4, 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 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]

Blackstone River Valley/Temp

edit

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]

  • Speedy deleted: In cases like that, you can drop a note on the top of it and then tag it for speedy deletion yourself. Author-blanked articles are speedy candidates. Geogre 03:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lions In Exile

edit

non-notable band; they formed this summer! Vanity perhaps? Delete.--Shanel 01:18, September 4, 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 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]

Jobbie Nooner

edit

Some party thing. It does have alot of hits on google though.--Shanel 01:30, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted: Contents were:
"A big gathering on lake St.Clairs Gull island. Beads are involved!!!!!!!! Visit there website for more information. http://www.jobbienooner.com ~tities~"

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]

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 DELETE. -Splash 20:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Professional victims

edit

Unreferenced personal essay, full of existential fallacy. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It appears that large portions of the essay are in fact copyvio from [3] and [4]. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Speedied as recreated content by Rdsmith4. android79 03:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Government terrorism

edit

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. android79 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

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 DELETE. -Splash 20:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting a martial art

edit

non-encyclopedic how-to. Probable copyvio, but I can't find a source. Brighterorange 01:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Delete and BJAODN Ral315 22:38, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Bearatross

edit

Delete. Joke article. Pretty funny stuff, though. To the page's author: might I suggest Uncyclopedia as a creative outlet? android79 01:55, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • I am one of the people studing the bearatrosses. I and a number of friends have seen a bearatoss, we where not drunk/stoned/high or anytthing of the like. — (Unsigned comment by B0bvila; user's 1st edit.)
  • I believe that the article makes perfectly clear that some believe that the bearatross is completely ficticious. This is similar to the situation with Bigfoot or even Mythology. Thus, in my humble opinion I do not believe that the article should be deleted. --Doomtiki 02:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 DELETE. Not much debate, not much point relisting. -Splash 20:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General Doli

edit

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

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 No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Useful unix command

edit

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)

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 Speedied by Geogre. android79 03:48, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Mager.L

edit

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. android79 02:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Definitely non-nontable and uncylopedic. Also, it's the original author who keeps removing the speedy tag.--Shanel 02:12, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Internally nonsensical: Undefeated 2004 player continues this week? Huh? Improper title, reference to an unverifiable individual (screen names aren't real people; they're fictions). Vandalism by the author doesn't help the case. Geogre 03:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grandma SquarePants

edit

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)

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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crowns and rebels

edit

Not notable. brenneman(t)(c) 02:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 DELETE. -Splash 20:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gone with the wind (2)

edit

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)

Comment: if this can be verified by somebody, then by all means change my vote to keep/cleanup. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:20:06, 2005-09-04 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_4&oldid=1233258439"