Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 5

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. JIP | Talk 10:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J.R. Benson

Not notable Bobby1011 19:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Google Books shows a lot of hits for this name, but none are relevant. So Google regular search needs narrowing to avoid false positives. Google "J.R. Benson"+wrestling gives lots of verifying hits even after ignoring the recent high-school wrestler. Appears to be not a hoax nor vanity. Despite lack of mainstream coverage, feature level of niche coverage indicates strong notability within his field. I wouldn't want him in my town, but I'll vote weak keep. Barno 20:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable enough in his field. Turnstep 20:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per nom Lyo 04:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Bizarre, but notable nonetheless.--み使い Mitsukai 17:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn, keep. Punkmorten 08:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nordfjordeid

Not worthy of its own article. Any information about Nordfjordeid, if it truly is significant, may and should be placed in the main article for Eid, Norway, as the information there is similarly sparse; I would rather expand the latter page into something more than keep two stubby ones. Nothing to merge from here, though. I move to delete. --Kinu 00:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've tweaked it a little. It's potentially keepable now, although a mege merge is still a possible option. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, depending on how much content we get. Night Gyr 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep geo-stub, if its deletable, then so is half of Wikipedia. Also I added some material to that which Grutness so kindly offered. Ruby 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Real place in Norway with real communities of interest. Additional to the information added by Grutness and Ruby, mathemetician Sophus Lie was born there in 1842. [1]. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Real, unique community. Grandmasterka 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruby. --Aaron 02:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as this is a real place in Norway. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn (in other words, keep) per the additions made herein. Looks a lot better, and definitely distinguishes itself from the Eid, Norway article. Thanks, all! --Kinu 06:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as it is a real place. Carioca 07:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is verifiable and a geographic location. Dakota ~ ε 08:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - brenneman^{T}{L} 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Techlogica

Fails WP:SOFTWARE and WP:CORP: Nn download stats, no media coverage. I tried three times to ask the article creator/company founder to assert its {{notability}} and he concludes I'm a competitor. I hereby ask the community to decide.-- Perfecto 00:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable and reeks of advertising. Given that the main editor of this page is Techlogica... vanity much? --Kinu 00:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 00:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blatant advertising, not WP:CORP Camillus (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear case of advertising. Mikkerpikker ... 01:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per aboveWhere (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Aaron 02:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this hideous SpamVert ++Deiz 12:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 14:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity and advertising - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It reads like an ad+vanity.--Shella 00:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as ads.Blnguyen 05:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination, fails all tests, advertisement. --Wingsandsword 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad, vanity, non-notable and dishonest (deleted the page's AFD tag). KarlBunker 16:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam Tawker 00:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Shella, TestPilot 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You people use the words "spam", "dishonest" and "hideous" to describe the company page for Techlogica? Its almost as if you don't even know the meaning of these words. Spam? No, spam comes in your email, our page isnt being forced on anyone. Dishonest? No, I reverted my page after what in my opinion was vandalism. Attempting to delete an article for no reason, now that I would consider dishonest. Very strange how you (Perfecto in particular) seem to be on some kind of crusade to get our page deleted for no reason other than the fact that you don't like it. Our page isn't any different than the other company pages listed here. It was simply a resource for someone interested in our company to see some general information. This whole thing has been very silly, asinine in fact, and very juvenile. I'll never understand how people get off on making things hard for other people.

• Strong delete, especially in light of the above statement. Juvenile actions like this won't save your page, regardless of whether the nominator has a bias or not. Your company is simply not notable under the guidelines set in WP:CORP, and if you don't care for that, then get yourself an account and work to change the guidelines there. Coming here and expecting what is essentially free advertising is both disingenious and contrary to good company ethics and thus shows a company clearly needing a gimmick to survive...just like so many other fly-by-night companies that have come trying to get "free Wiki ads".--み使い Mitsukai 01:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There are many free web-hosting places out there that would be glad to be a resource for someone interested in our company to see some general information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; however, and is not the place for such things. Peyna 03:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Mitsukai and Peyna, and of course WP:CORP. Bad ideas 23:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - cant see a reason for notability. --Pierremenard 08:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, already blanked by creator. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Curtain Lady

nn ghost. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• "Please note that this entry is based entirely on interviews of the persons involved. I wrote a report on this for my local history report in school three years ago. The story may seem silly and unserious to some people, but for the local area that this occured in, this caused a massive frustration among parents and children alike." Delete as original research. --Malthusian (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable original research. As far as the legend: Wikipedia is not Snopes. --Kinu 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Royboycrashfan 00:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, non-notable. --Lockley 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Work that explicitly calls itself a violation of wikipedia rules ought to be speediable. The creator has blanked the page, so I tagged it as speedy. Night Gyr 00:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN & original research. Mikkerpikker ... 01:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - brenneman^{T}{L} 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Real World (Detroit)

There is no sign that BMP will actually film in Detroit. This article is pure speculation. Sensation002 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, obvious speculation. Royboycrashfan 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. At the moment, this is just speculation. (I believe Amy Poehler on SNL joked that this may be shot in Detroit, along with several cast members.) All sources I can find, including Detroit papers, simply call it a rumor, as does the article in question itself. If this does come to fruition, the article can always be recreated with substantiated information, which is sorely lacking here anyway. --Kinu 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation and restoration of article history if it proves to be real. youngamerican (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mikkerpikker ... 01:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is pure crystalballery. Grandmasterka 02:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 07:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 14:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Speculation. Restore if it turns out to be true - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as speculaiton.Blnguyen 05:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 08:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete speculation --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 23:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 00:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio.blog.Club

Blatant spam. Reyk 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Keep. With 111,000 Google results, maybe it's popular. Let's wait until the creator expands it. Rory096 00:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. With an Alexa rank of 4,216 and 267,000 Google results, I'm sure it has potential. Royboycrashfan 00:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Royboycrashfan's research Ruby 02:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand given that it meets WP:WEB, given Royboycrashfan's research. Capitalistroadster 02:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Royboycrashfan Prodego ^talk 14:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per above, and also, as a blogger, I can assure you it's a popular service ComputerJoe 16:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• KeepLyo 04:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - brenneman^{T}{L} 23:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoee

Delete- Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a translation site. Rory096 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Kinu 00:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps transfer to Wiktionary. Royboycrashfan 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gibberish --DV8 2XL 01:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and transfer to Wiktionary (as per Royboycrashfan). Mikkerpikker ... 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Where (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- On top of everything, uses stupid Greek transcription. AnonMoos 06:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 14:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 08:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Timothy Treadwell. --Celestianpower ^háblame 08:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grizzly people

Article does not assert its importance. Delete —Brim 00:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks more like a link repository and/or advertising. --Kinu 00:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Redirect to Timothy Treadwell per Zoe. After further review, this subject is mentioned in the article for Treadwell. Based on the amount of information, a separate article seems redundant. --Kinu 01:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Timothy Treadwell is the subject of the award-winning film Grizzly Man, which even appeared on the Discovery Channel. Google does yield several hundred results, in addition to several Google News results. Rory096 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Poorly written, but Rory has a great reason for keeping it. Royboycrashfan 00:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and redirect Articles about a group that do not assert its importance are speediable. Replace with redirect to Timothy Treadwell. Night Gyr 01:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Timothy Treadwell. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• M&R to that guy that couldn't have been shocked that he was being eaten by a bear. youngamerican (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Treadwell until such time we have enough info to justify an article on this organisation. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Timothy Treadwell. JoshuaZ 05:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect - per JoshuaZ. Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 06:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Timothy Treadwell Prodego ^talk 14:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Boldy Redirected to Timothy Treadwell. May warrant separate article, but currently has no info not found there.--ragesoss 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. We still need the old content to be merged into Treadwell's article. Rory096 18:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There was no old content, just one misspelled sentence. Night Gyr 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Journal of Oregon Ornithology. JIP | Talk 10:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joo

Delete. Resuming AfD per my comments below. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and nothing links to this page. --Aaron 08:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and nothing links to this page. Hbackman 00:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not worth a TransWiki. --Kinu 00:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Move to Journal of Oregon Ornithology and redirect per below to keep the new, legitimate information. --Kinu 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• The article has been completely rewritten, and the new subject seems legit. It still should be moved to Journal of Oregon Ornithology. Royboycrashfan 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I fixed it, let's keep it Ruby 01:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but move. I agree with Royboycrashfan. The new article is worth keeping, but JOO should redirect to Journal of Oregon Ornithology. Changed my mind in light of Aaron's comment. Hbackman 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Boldy Moved, Speedy Keep The original deletion criteria no longer apply, and the nominator seems to have withdrawn their nomination. Night Gyr 01:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Even the new article appears to be nn. The last issue of JOO was published 10 years ago, and the publication has only 138 unique Google hits. --Aaron 08:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think this was handled correctly, as the original Joo article, which had nothing to do with the Journal of Oregon Ornithology, was completely destroyed in the page move. I'll leave Journal of Oregon Ornithology as-is for now (though I still think it's nn), but I'm reverting Joo and resuming the AfD on that version. --Aaron 08:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I will ask for the page to be protected pending the outcome of this discussion if it's reverted again. Besides, according to WP:MOS, Joo shouldn't redirect to an article with the initials J.O.O. anyway. That's what JOO is for (which already exists and redirects to Journal of Oregon Ornithology). --Aaron 17:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete if Joo does not continue to redirect to Journal of Oregon Ornithology. Ruby 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Because of current redirect - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in any guise, since as Aaron notes JOO is the correct article to redirect to Journal of Oregon Ornithology, not Joo, and the original content was dictionary. -- Mithent 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep redirect. It can't hurt, and it might help a very small number of searchers.--ragesoss 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Leet. Adrian Lamo ·· 23:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the redirect as it is. It looks harmless. Take this to redirects for deletion if necessary. Peyna 04:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 00:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G D Goenka Public School

Tagged as PROD but referred here. I believe schools to be worthy of inclusion regardless of geographic location and vote to Keep. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but rewrite. Royboycrashfan 00:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, established school, and helps to counteract systemic bias. Kappa 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, I'd like to read about indian schools, but this article has no content except POV asskissing. " fountainhead of knowledge, education and sport." " It offers all the eminities and facilities that a modern school could possibly only imagine." Misspelled asskissing at that. Night Gyr 00:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Phil, you are under no obligation to send it here when you remove the PROD tag. Indeed it is a little pointless, since the outcome of this debate is inevitably keep (either outright or no-consensus). --Doc ^ask? 00:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I haven't been to AfD in awhile so I didn't know. I knew that schools were generally keeps, but I didn't know that non-US schools were. Someone should feel free to speedy keep in awhile if that's the case. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't believe being in the US or not is very relevant. This is the English language wikipedia, and English is an important language in India. --kingboyk 01:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per User:Night Gyr --kingboyk 01:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa. Dlyons493 Talk 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Phil Lyo 05:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I was the original prodder, not knowing that there appears to be a general "keep" consensus for schools. It still seems to me that a completely generic school (in whatever county), with nothing to distinguish it from hundreds like it, is no more notable and inclusion-worthy than a generic road, tree, house, etc. As to systemic bias, I wasn't aware that this ought to be a notability consideration - or do we now have an "affirmative action" policy for non-Western content? -- Sandstein 07:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• This appears to be an English language fee-paying school (a Public School in the sense used in England rather than America, I feel), and therefore does have some note and separation beyond that of the immediate geographical location. As such, and given that the article states the school advertises in in-flight magazines, it would appear to be more notable than the average school, and therefore may well warrant an article in its own right, so weak keep. If not, I would suggest that the Vasant Kunj article is expanded to detail the schools in the suburb further. Average Earthman 15:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The annual school fees are close to ten times the average annual income in India. Whether one is for or against this, I feel it's a degree of notability. Dlyons493 Talk 17:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per nominator (don't get to use that phrase very often!) and Dlyons493's observation regarding fees. Turnstep 20:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not establish notability and, regardless of their location, schools are not inherently notable. Cedars 01:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs big cleanup & rewrite, but not deletion. --Wingsandsword 08:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable, and apparently more so than most of the American high schools with articles. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 22:13Z
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable and therefore not related to "systemic bias." If, in all likelihood, kept, do not expand with transient and non-notable information for the sake of expansion. -— Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• 'keep and please help stop the bias Yuckfoo 19:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per nom. Siva1979 09:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endless Online/Changelog

Delete We don't do subpages in the main namespace, and a changelog for a game is not ensyclopedia material in any case. --Sherool (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete absolutely un-encyclopedic. Camillus (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Patent nonsense. EdGl 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, non encyclopediatic (probably copyvio too) Where (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete for reasons given. Daniel Case 03:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete for subpage alone, although I'd have voted delete if it was Changes in Endless Online too. Snurks ^{T C} 04:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per subpage guidelines; vote would be delete otherwise. --Kinu 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete now that's what I call consensus. W.marsh 00:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Absolutehype

Non-notable website. No Alexa rating. One google hit and it appears to have been created by the owner itself. Delete Dr Debug (Talk) 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Royboycrashfan 01:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - freeloaders. Get 'em off our encyclo.! Camillus (talk)
• Delete. Non-notable, WP:VSCA. --Kinu 01:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. EdGl 01:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. —ERcheck @ 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable Where (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, vanity. JoshuaZ 03:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Brim 04:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Reyk 06:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ardenn 07:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, in case 11 other opinions weren't enough. Adrian Lamo ·· 11:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Prodego ^talk 14:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —This user has left wikipedia 18:50 2006-02-05
• Delete Non-notable - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this absolute hype. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. —Sesel 22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete mercilessly as advertisement. Bad ideas 06:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisement and vanity. --Wingsandsword 08:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutedelete. What some people won't do for attention....--み使い Mitsukai 15:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podcast magazine

Online magazine which started Feb 1st. 4 google hits. No Alexa rating. Delete Dr Debug (Talk) 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete such an embryo, they can't afford advertising, so thought they'd get a free lunch on WP. Delete forthwith! Camillus (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and Vanity EdGl 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, WP:VSCA. --Kinu 01:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. —ERcheck @ 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 02:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as should be anything that uses the first person plural. Daniel Case 03:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 14:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a member of the team who put the Podcast User together. We are not aware of who put the entry on WP. Please delete. We have no interest in having a WP entry. Paul.Pinfield

• Delete. NN. feydey 17:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —This user has left wikipedia 18:50 2006-02-05
• Delete podcruft Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete podcasts are rarely encyclopedic, and nn magazines about them are even less so. Adrian Lamo ·· 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as podcruft.Blnguyen 05:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable, advertisement. --Wingsandsword 09:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Holy shit, delete. Podcruft. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:57, Feb. 8, 2006
• Delete adtacular! Snurks ^{T C} 08:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 02:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --W.marsh 02:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hohak Band

Does not meet notability criteria for bands Amcfreely 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. EdGl 01:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Google yields 191 results; the first page is mostly Wikipedia and its mirrors. Royboycrashfan 02:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Prodego ^talk 14:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:50 2006-02-05
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Labor Exchange Band, which contributed some members to Hohak band is notable--Golden Song appears to be a legitimate and significant award. Therefore, does pass WP:MUSIC. Bad ideas 06:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Yet another tiny, non-notable band that doesn't really warrant an article. --Wingsandsword 09:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per "Bad ideas" Lyo 04:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep per Bad Ideas or merge with previous band. Kappa 03:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Also passes WP:MUSIC by being reviewed in the Taipei Times: [2]. Kappa 03:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Pierremenard 08:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but a move/redirect is in order. W.marsh 02:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Davlatmand Kholor

Non-notable musician Amcfreely 01:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Search Google for "Davlatmand Kholor" and all the results are online encyclopedia entries. EdGl 01:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and EdGl. --Kinu 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not asserted. Where (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 02:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 14:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to Davlatmand Kholov. Quick look to Music of Tajikistan gives Davlatmand Kholov, meaning eighter a typo (move) or a diffrent spelling of name (just edit). Naturally a Google search of Davlatmand Kholov gives 935 links for Davlatmand Kholov, f.ex.: BBC site, french bio, Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio National site etc. feydey 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Feydey. WP:BIAS &c. Smerdis of Tlön 17:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable vanity. --Wingsandsword 09:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Feydey.--み使い Mitsukai 16:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I've never heard of him either, but I think deleting this would be an indication of WP:BIAS. - Hahnchen 22:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Pierremenard 08:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S23 Wiki

Notability of this wiki is not asserted in the article. There are only 182 registered users, and 5930 total pages. The article was nominated for deletion in December, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S23 Wiki. The result of that discussion was "no consensus", because of 3 late "keep" votes from the Wiki's members. dbenbenn | talk 01:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable as per nom. Also seems to fail WP:WEB; Google "s23 wiki" for dearth of results that are not self-referential. --Kinu 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruby 01:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable wiki. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 03:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: After seeing the end-loading of the votes by apparent members of this group on the previous AfD nomination, there seems to be a fervent desire on their part to see this article stay. If deletion occurs, perhaps it should come with {{deletedpage}} status. --Kinu 04:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Possibly give a short mention on Seti@home. JoshuaZ 05:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 14:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:50 2006-02-05
• Keep per stopping trollish deletion. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it is a much more active site than infoAnarchy. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 00:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep please. As you will see from our Current events page that we really care about this wiki and really love being metioned on Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding. -Kunda23 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Love being metioned? Sounds like the purpose of the page is vanity... which is a criterion for deletion. --Kinu 02:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • They didn't create the article, I did. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If you have to delete anyways, do it, but in general, why is deleting so important? Does that little diskspace matter? Staying would give us a chance to have more users, but we cant stay if we dont have enough of them.. hmm oh well, cant help it then Mutante23 01:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have often wondered why people consider deleting articles such as this to be such an important job. Deleting it won't reduce the bytes on Wikipedia; it would still take up space under Special:Undelete/S23 Wiki. Furthermore, this article makes Wikipedia a better source for information. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Bad ideas 06:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Pages aren't deleted to save space. They're deleted because not everything is worthy of being in an encyclopedia. See WP:NOT. In particular, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia--it is true that there is no limit on the amount of information wikipedia can contain. However, wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information--the information on wikipedia must be encyclopedic and notable. See WP:WEB for notability criteria of a website. Bad ideas 06:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 09:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 12:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom, non-notable website, as defined in WP:WEB. Agnte 13:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• MattisManzel 14:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC): keep
• Keep I think it's notable, so keep it. Took77 15:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The previous user was recently created has no significant contibutions beyond this vote. Not actually calling sock puppetry on this user in particular, but adding the warning preemptively, since there is precedent from the previous AfD as well. --Kinu 17:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm a real human being. My german wikipedia-account doesn't seems to work with this english wiki, thats why I had to create a new one. Took77 18:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I do not understand why people are saying this is not notable. It seems to be a notable website. If it cannot be kept, then I say redirect to Seti@home because it makes no sense to needlessly delete it. — Galaeron Nihmedu 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JarlaxleArtemis Lyo 04:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kinu. --MayerG 05:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JarlaxleArtemis. --User:Yaotl
• Delete per nom. Lots of keep votes from newly created accounts. --Pierremenard 08:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Acctualy we are only passiv readers of the english wiki. Since my english isn't that great I prefer editing the german wikipedia... That's, again, why I had to create an Account here just to take part on this discussion on the article... Anyway. I guess if pages like Zeldapedia (or lots of other examples) may exists, there is a eligibility to keep S23 Wiki. It's no reason to delete a page just because it has been started by someone like Jarlaxle, who may have started some zany pages, I think. But we can see it as an positive side-effect, that, as I have heard, some guys from the s23-comunity are workin on an improvment of S23 Wiki :) Took77 11:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Some zany pages? Thanks. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 01:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Pathoschild - CSD G1 --lightdarkness 05:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Richard of Prusia

Delete - factually incorrect nonsense, no Hohenzollern king named richard Xorkl000 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - some kid (who can't spell) playing around. Camillus (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per hoax and/or patent nonsense. --Kinu 01:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably taken from this web page, the only website mentioning a "King Richard of Prussia". EdGl 01:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, patent nonsense Where (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —ERcheck @ 02:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy G1, very poorly written patent nonsense. Royboycrashfan 02:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy. Rmhermen 03:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not quite patent nonsense exactly but pretty dumb. Snurks ^{T C} 03:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Clear speedy case, should not get here. Pavel Vozenilek 05:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metameaning

neologism that claims to be a branch of philosophy, but really just refers to one sparse website. Googling for 'metameaning' largely pulls references to the Wikipedia page or that web site. Sukiari 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Epistemology is the study of the meaning of meaning but it is sloppy to state there is actually a term for the meaning of meaning, which would be a recursive headache Ruby 01:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Google yields mostly self-referential (no irony intended) and Wiki references. Hardly accepted, even for a neologism. --Kinu 02:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is basically an advertisement for a non-notable website. The article itself is superfluous, as (a) philosophers do not actually use the term 'metameaning', and (b) the investigation of the nature (or "meaning") of meaning is already covered in philosophy of language, semantics, and related articles. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. TheRingess 06:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 14:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:50 2006-02-05
• Delete per Dbtfz Bad ideas 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. --Wingsandsword 08:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flyingcart

Appears to be a random web service. WP:WEB Stifle 02:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. --Kinu 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't an article, it's an ad, look at it. Ruby 02:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, reads like an advertisement. Royboycrashfan 02:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising Obli (Talk) 12:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Prodego ^talk 14:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:50 2006-02-05
• Delete advertising - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as ad.Blnguyen 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without mercy as advertisement. Bad ideas 05:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yet more non-notable advertisement to delete. --Wingsandsword 08:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. When will people learn that this isn't an effective strategy? — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 17:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 02:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tamariki

Wikipedia is not a (language) dictionary. Maybe merge this into Maori or Maori language? Hbackman 02:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep changed to an article about a notable school Ruby 02:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per Ruby's changes. (Thank you!) --Kinu 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per Ruby. Royboycrashfan 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not quite sure how notable it is, but I'm willing to go along with consensus. Isn't there a schools Wikiproject? They might be interested in this. Hbackman 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)"Capitalistroadster 03:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep now that Ruby has expanded it. The original nomination for deletion was fair enough, but this is a completely different article.-gadfium 04:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruby Prodego ^talk 14:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Now a worthwhile article. — TheKMan^talk 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination is now not applicable. -- Mithent 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, expansion makes it now worthwhile, but does it need renaming to Tamariki School or even Tamariki (school)? Any thoughts?Hairybottle 12:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  It should be moved if it's ever necessary, but it's doing just fine where it is for now. — TheKMan^talk 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:29, 5 February 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nashawn

This rapper asserts some notability, but I couldn't find much on google and as it is it fails WP:MUSIC. Delete unless someone can provide more evidence of notability. Grandmasterka 02:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There's not much more evidence to provide, Grandmasterka. Royboycrashfan 02:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This guy and his lyrics are all over google but it would be nice if someone found the highest chart position of his work Ruby 02:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Allmusic.com doesn't know him which suggests he hasn't charted as it has entries on all charting musicians. Has appeared on Nas albums as they are apparently cousins but doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrant his own article. Capitalistroadster 03:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreate. The crystal ball can't say whether this artist will be notable, either by himself or as part of Nas's outfit, but I would support recreating the article with new substantiated information if it is warranted in the future. --Kinu 03:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Endomion, 25k + hits on google. Need to be expanded a bit with how he charted Senner 03:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If you look at the results, most of them are obiously irrelevant. Many of them refer to Nashawn Kearse. Grandmasterka 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per Kinu. If he happens to have success in the future (which seems unlikely to me), then recreate the article. Otherwise, he's not notable enough. -Chairman S. 04:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, not even close to WP:MUSIC ++Deiz 12:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 14:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 18:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:50 2006-02-05
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Wingsandsword 08:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Pierremenard 08:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 01:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forty-nine character virtues

List of vague adjectives with no connecting ideas or explanations. Nothing noteworthy to keep and the ideas are directly copied from the author's personal webpage[3] save biblical references. This article should be deleted and the link to the "Forty-nine character virtues" should be placed Bill Gothard's wikipedia page for interested parties. Arbustoo 06:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, though take out the actual list itself before doing so -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? It's just a list. Arbustoo 06:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • good point. Delete. --DDerby-(talk) 08:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Since most of the article is the list, a mention should be added in Bill Gothard's article that the list exists, and a redirect left on this article. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all It's original research, a more complex google search for "character virtues" "Bill Gothard" -wikipedia gives TWO results and they are both unauthoritative. —This user has left wikipedia 08:47 2006-02-02
  • Comment - he seems to call them "character qualities", as per this link, and "character qualities" "bill gothard" -wikipedia on Google has 170 results, which is a bit better. It doesn't seem like original research. Snurks ^{T C} 04:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Αchille. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Achille. Joe 02:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of Achille's points. --Kinu 02:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge; or Delete (essentially) with commented external link to this list Davilla 09:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as too crufty to justify a merge. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Prodego ^talk 14:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 18:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Achille. --Wingsandsword 08:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete Harvestdancer 18:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator --lightdarkness 05:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ga Ba Majay Ba Ma Pyay

Non-notable non-English phrase. Delete. Grandmasterka 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC) I withdraw the nomination based on it being the national anthem of Burma.

• Delete, it's poorly written. In addition, Google displays 32 results, most of which are encyclopedia entries. Royboycrashfan 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, insignificant phrase EdGl 03:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep I fixed it, please consider again Ruby 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Ruby's cleanup and nominator's withdrawal. --Kinu 03:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment this is already present on WP as Gba_Majay_Bma which one person says "However, the title "Gba Majay Bma" is strange in Burmese ears. It should be "Gba Majay Bma Pyay" or just "Gba Majay"." That article also has the lyrics. Ruby 03:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I definitely support a series of redirects/merges to bring all the information to one place with the proper spelling of the title. --Kinu 04:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as it has been cleanup by Ruby. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Thug life Code

This is a direct copy (not even any formatting) from other sites, including http://www.thuglifearmy.com/news/?id=8 Nothing else is in the article. It has been this way since it was created. No one has/will step up to clean it up since it has been in cleanup status since November. The Deviant 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've marked this page a copyvio. Royboycrashfan 03:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:Copyvio, and no encyclopedic value. --Kinu 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Terrible article, completely unecessary. -Chairman S. 04:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio Prodego ^talk 14:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio. -- Mithent 22:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Copyvio. --Wingsandsword 09:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.--み使い Mitsukai 17:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:12, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] School Choice Party (New York)

Last active in 2004, according to their website; never successfully elected anyone (yet). When they have a base of 100 elected officals, an article would be appropriate. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. If your homepage is on GeoCities, I don't think you deserve a Wikipedia article, not even for the free advertising without bandwidth limitations. --Kinu 03:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A party that endorses more than one candidate is notable enough for mine at any stage. I doubt that any Communist Party in the US, UK, Australia or Canada has ever come within a bull's roar of having 100 elected officials yet we don't delete those and rightly so. Capitalistroadster 03:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. They are only a single-state party, in a state that has plenty of other parties that we have articles on (Conservative Party of New York, Working Families Party, New York State Right to Life Party for example). Let them get 50,000 votes in this year's gubernatorial election (which gives them an automatic ballot line for the next four years) and then they're notable. Daniel Case 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Ardenn 07:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 14:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete A search of 1700+ newspapers via Newsbank for the query "School Choice Party" turns up 3 results. Not enough verifiable info on activities for an article. Lotsofissues 16:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, as it is a verifiable party[4], but no candidates and that 50,000 votes line... (and a geocities website). feydey 17:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough. Eusebeus 18:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unimportant an non-notable political party. — TheKMan^talk 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination and Lotsofoissues, not notable, apparently inactive, and insignificant. --Wingsandsword 09:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Punkmorten 09:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Young Turks

author has requested it be deleted due to the band not currently meeting wikipedia standards. No idea if this in fact the case Geni 03:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like their only album isn't out yet. Delete and/or redirect to Young Turks. —Kirill Lokshin 03:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per author's request. It is indeed a non-notable band. EdGl 03:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per author's request. Royboycrashfan 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per author's request or weak redirect to Young Turks. --Kinu 03:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per author's request. I'm leaving a friendly note on the user's talk page and I hope others will, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC) I had suggested "redirect" but on further reflection I don't think "The Young Turks" with "Young" and "Turks" capitalized is a plausible way for people to look for Young Turks. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Nobody will type "The Young Turks" in the search box when they can just put "Young Turks". EdGl 04:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Young Turks. Plausible search term. Capitalistroadster 03:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per author's request. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Boldly implemented the redirect. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily redirected to whitewash. Consensus seems apparent - being bold. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitewashing

Delete: Duplicates Whitewash --CTSWyneken 03:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect. No need for AFD, really. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 03:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect. Royboycrashfan 03:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect. EdGl 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with/to Whitewash#Other_meanings. --Kinu 03:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 03:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Merge/Redirectdrboisclair 03:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect, delist. Pavel Vozenilek 05:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy move to User:Douglas Gross/Multitasking at author request. -- RHaworth 09:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multitasking - How Multitasking Works

I'm not sure that this should be simply deleted outright, but at any rate it isn't an encyclopaedic article in its current form - I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. The title of the page, and overall tone, make it clear that this belongs elsewhere.-- PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to WikiBooks or WikiSource, then Delete. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything worth merging with Multitasking, then transwiki the rest. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sophomore level text, neither precise nor well written for what I can see. Pavel Vozenilek 05:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Douglas_Gross by the author (me). You can bookmark my UserTalk page if you like. I will continue to post my technical articles there.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issaquah_Davinta

Reason why the page should be deleted: I can't find anything about this supposed Jedi online other than mirrors of the wiki page. Furthermore, have talked to multiple star wars fanatics who have no recall of him at all. I strongly suspect that someone made this character up and put him on Wikipedia. In any case, highly non-notable. JoshuaZ 05:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It even says "a fake character". WP:NFT.Royboycrashfan 03:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatantly fake. Deletion should also include removal of reference at Jedi. --Kinu 03:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Issaquah is actually an exurb of Seattle, I doubt its a real character Ruby 03:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hilarious read; put in BJAODN. EdGl 04:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Royboycrashfan. Ardenn 07:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Prodego ^talk 14:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per the above. Somebody's own personal fanfic or player character (or whatever this is, it's certainly not anything official or canonical) really doesn't belong here. --Wingsandsword 09:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --BorgQueen 23:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Family Promotions

Delete - smells of WP:VSCA and poorly written too --Xorkl000 03:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: A7. Also WP:VSCA. --Kinu 03:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam spam spam Ruby 03:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A7 per all above. Royboycrashfan 05:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --kingboyk 07:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Prodego ^talk 14:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Bar Radio

This came up in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamers daily, and in the interests of fairness I have listed this too. A weekly 2 hour radio show with no indication of notability. Alexa ranking over 300,000. Janitorial action so no vote from me just yet. kingboyk 03:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Nobody come's up with an assertion of notability, I say delete too. --kingboyk 21:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, except maybe for local or cruft interest; reeks of WP:VSCA. --Kinu 03:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruby 04:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. Royboycrashfan 09:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable Prodego ^talk 14:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- internet radiocruft. Haikupoet 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as radiocruft.Blnguyen 05:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, just another podcast Bad ideas 05:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. --Wingsandsword 09:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, per Kinu. --Andy Saunders 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --File Éireann 22:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chump

Neologism, possible hoax. None of the Google results have anything to do with the topic. King of Hearts | (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. While being a "chump" is a common expression, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Urban or otherwise. The definition and etymology provided are suspect at best ("chumpishness" doesn't seem like a cromulent word). Not worth a Transwiki. --Kinu 04:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. EdGl 04:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's hardly a neologism (see A Chump At Oxford, the 1940 Laurel & Hardy film). However it does seem to be a dictdef so delete per Kinu. --kingboyk 06:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. While it is indeed an actual word, the information give is quite inaccurate. It could easily be rewritten. Royboycrashfan 09:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: It is neither a neologism or a hoax being familiar to speakers of British English - although this is not made clear. However, I am not at all sure about the given definition. If it belongs anywhere, it is in wikidicitonry. 13:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary Prodego ^talk 14:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only because its just a definition. If it was expanded to encyclopedia-type content, I'll change to keep. This is why Wictionary was invented - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cesar Davila Gavilanes

All of three Google hits, two of which are from the same site. Doesn't seem notable. Daniel Case 04:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I tried some variations of the name, to see if the article title is simply a misspelling, but found nothing to verify the contents. Non-notable by my standards. --Kinu 05:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Royboycrashfan 09:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Prodego ^talk 14:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Hach

Originally tagged for speedy, but contested by the article creator with a mild assertion of notability. This, however, appears unclear, with no references and 0 relevant hits on Google. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 04:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• search Bob Hach Laidlaw on Google —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hachster (talk • contribs) .

• 0 hits... Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 04:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable despite author's claims. EdGl 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Try not putting quotes around it and you'll get links to the following sites about him among others: http://www.zoominfo.com/directory/Hach_Bob_314093.htm. There are also court documents that indicate him as the presdient and CEO of Laidlaw that can be found on google as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hachster (talk • contribs) .

• (edit conflict) The string search you propose gives 4 relevant hits, including the one you provide. Better than none, but imho, not enough to establish notability enough to warrant an article. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 04:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I fail to see how running a bus company gives notability. --kingboyk 04:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well when its a Fortune 500 company, and the profitable portion of the company I think it is. You have other CEOS and Presidents on here, what makes running a bus company different than running say an accounting firm, or software firm. He's accomplished a lot more than other folks on here such as pro wrestlers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hachster (talk • contribs) .

• Ahh, but pro wrestlers are more famous than bus-company CEOs. When this company becomes a Fortune 500 company, then you may write this article. EdGl 05:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What is it about pro wrestlers lately that's making them the favored new-editor default standard for inclusion? (see here) Daniel Case 05:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Well go ahead and check the 2005 Fortune 500 and you'll see Laidlaw International as #419 on the Fortune 500. So this its not a matter of when since it currently is a Fortune 500 company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hachster (talk • contribs) .

• Being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and being the CEO of a subsidiary of a Fortune 500 company are two different things. EdGl 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well when you run the profitable division that keeps the company from disintegrating its worth noting —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hachster (talk • contribs) .

• If the gentleman in question is CEO of a Fortune 500 company that might be a different matter. However, a) the article doesn't make such a claim, b) I'm neither American nor do I have intimate knowledge of who is on the F500 and who isn't it. If the article doesn't tell me how am I to know? Since other editors have stated he's not in that position anyway I guess it doesn't matter. --kingboyk 07:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: At the least, the information about The Deer Hunter is unverifiable via Google or IMDb, so I am boldly removing it. --Kinu 05:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well Kinu, I'm glad you're able to just use your resources of Google and IMDB to find information. Here's a better question for you. If you're judging the information I'm submitting. I think we need to verify your information of being a graduate of Economics from Yale University's Davenport College. If that's the case, why are you doing technical support for Wikipedia. Shouldn't you have a job doing economic research for a Wall Street firm. I'd be hard pressed to see proof that you actually graduated form Yale with an economics degree
  • Please try to keep this discussion civil and relevant to the matter at hand. I have not personally attacked you by making the aforementioned edit; it was a judgment call based on the fact that the information was not readily verifiable. We are more than open to a source that would verify this information, and if it is indeed true, it would be reinserted in the page and kept (assuming a lack of deletion per this discussion). Again, I am not trying to bite, just explain. And, as a show of good faith as to verifying information, here's my YaleStation profile. --Kinu 08:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well there are plenty of facts out there to prove the information. I'm sorry that it's all not Google accessible. Not all information is found on google. Plenty of Court documents and Mission statements from him are out there, sorry if they're not on google.

• Delete, smells of non-notability. Royboycrashfan 10:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as the unsigned bitchy comments by the author carry no weight whatsoever except to diminish the quality of his character yet further. Oh, and the subject is 100% nn VanityCruft ++Deiz 12:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The author's comments further up this page notwithstanding, the biography as provided on the page under discussion doesn't assert the notable status of the subject. As such, it violates WP:BIO and should be deleted. The author has such time until the discussion is closed to add verifiable information that raises the status of Mr Hach to notable. If this is done, then I will reconsider my vote.  (aeropagitica)  13:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: per nom. And author needs to learn how to sign his/her comments. Use ~~~~. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And with the outcome of this Afd very clear, I'll bite my toungue on responding to the ridiculous defense. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Prodego ^talk 14:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the sentiments voiced by Deiz. Eusebeus 18:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 21:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:15, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Committee for International Peace (CIP)

Non-notable campus group Wkdewey 04:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. They are no different than any such club at any university. And their main page is on MySpace... come on. --Kinu 04:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete after vandalism by 68.192.15.169, who is an anonymous editor of this article, to my user page. If you have voted delete on this issue, you should check your user page as well. --Kinu 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kinu. --Aaron 04:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. EdGl 04:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteunless evidence of notablitiy can be estabished.

Keep. There seems to be some evidence of a level of notability (they are mentioned in an article in the north texus daily) so I think it should be kept for now.--JK the unwise 11:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 14:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kinu. -feydey 18:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Do not delete, Entry has been expanded. --CIP 21:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 09:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep. -- Waveguy 07:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. I found several articles on them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.150.236.125 (talk • contribs).
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Entry has been expanded. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objects Search

Put up for deletion once, but there was no discussion [5]. Non-notable. Hbackman 04:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Reeks of advertising. No possible expansion perceived. The redirect page ObjectsSearch should be deleted as well. --Kinu 04:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no improvement for months, dead. Pavel Vozenilek 05:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, neglected, etc. Royboycrashfan 10:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Prodego ^talk 14:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, strange nobody entered previous discussion... - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, advertisement. --Wingsandsword 09:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darth Beguile

Delete. Appears to be fan fiction of some sort. Google search only returns answers.com version of article, nothing links to article here. BryanG 04:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fake character. --Kinu 04:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. --Aaron 04:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fake character. EdGl 04:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete JoshuaZ 04:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's false, there are only two "Darths" at a time Ruby 05:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 10:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above Prodego ^talk 14:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsence - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Definite fan fiction. --Canley 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fanfiction & nonsense. Unverifyable and "original research". --Wingsandsword 09:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn Prodego ^talk 14:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bright green

Neologism. A Google search on the phrase in an environmental context shows it being used only by the same blogs and individuals who happen to have linked to it from their own Wikipedia pages. Aaron 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination per discussion below. --Aaron 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Niche, non-notable neologism. --Kinu 04:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete A check of the article's history shows that this started out as an article on the colour and has been a redirect to the article green. Whether reverted or redirected, past work should not be obliterated because someone hijacked it to talk about obscure politics. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Boldly reverting to the redirect for green. --Kinu 07:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I was aware of the article history. I didn't mention it becaue I didn't want to overly complicate what I expected to be a quick consensus to delete, after which I could restore the original article. But now that it's been mentioned: It was Dbenbenn, an admin, who originally blanked the article and turned it into a redirect to green, with the odd rationale (according to his edit summary) that there was "no content here" (which, as you can see from the diff, is factually incorrect). Nameneko then nominated the redirect for deletion, which I can only presme failed, as Stoph removed the RfD tag a little over two weeks later. It was then the anonymous user User:71.37.1.43 that hijacked the page and turned it into the environmental neologism that I nominated for deletion a few hours ago. We may have to WP:AGF on the anon user's actions, as WP:RFD rather confusingly says, "Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold." I personally don't believe that means you can change it into an article on an entirely different subject, but you have to admit it's pretty damn vague. Anyway, now that I've explained all that: As long as Kinu has already reverted, I'm going to revert back a little further to the last version of the true article stub about the color itself. (This was a legit article from the moment it was created, as there are a large number of articles about colors on WP; see List of colors, which to this day includes a link to the long-since-hijacked Bright green.) --Aaron 07:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with the version you've reverted back to... I'd like to say that when people think "bright green," they think of #66FF00, as its a pretty standard version of it. It's a lot more useful in this form than redirecting to "just plain old" green, and I'd keep it in this form. --Kinu 07:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Consensus was to delete all except Hatch. W.marsh 02:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Quinton

User:Thepangelinanpost has created a ton of articles on reality TV show contestants, with no other claims to notability apart from being on the show. I dont know what the guidelines say so I'll list this one here as an example. delete BadSeed 04:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The other articles: Kathy Vavrick-O'Brien, Sean Rector, Robert DeCanio, Zoe Zanidakis, Gina Crews, Peter Harkey, Patricia Jackson, Gabriel Cade, Kelly Goldsmith, Carl Bilancione, Frank Garrison, Teresa Cooper, Clarence Black, Silas Gaither, Linda Spencer, Lindsey Richter. This guy (Richard Hatch (reality TV)) won, does it make him more notable? --BadSeed 04:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vote Brandon off the island again Ruby 04:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete en masse, except for Richard Hatch, who's managed to screw up enough to stay in the news off and on for years. --Aaron 04:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Any useful information about these individuals (which is probably none) should only be on the respective Survivor page. --Kinu 04:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with Aaron re: Richard Hatch. He was essentially one of the "pioneers," if that word is appropriate, in the reality show contestant field, and is about as famous (or infamous, depending on your POV) with his gratuitous nudity and tax problems and whatnot. He is the only one that deserves an article, much like Charles Van Doren or Ken Jennings. All the other AfD candidates mentioned herein are deletable. --Kinu 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete them all; they all appear to be non-notable reality game-show contestants.  (aeropagitica)  13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Prodego ^talk 14:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete any reality show contestent who haven't managed to extend their fame/infamy past their duration on the show. Average Earthman 15:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep They were probably created by someone trying to turn all the red links blue on pages like Survivor: Marquesas, see google cache from a few days ago [6]. All 8 of the links which were red there were part of this series. -- Astrokey44|talk 15:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All except FNF (Richard Hatch). The rest are nn enough for individual articles. Eusebeus 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all except Richard Hatch. MCB 06:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Gagnon-Bagheri

Non-notable. Does not meet criteria at WP:MUSIC. ~MDD4696 04:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Because he has has "solo projects in his mind" but he will never be able to wrap all the "music genders" Ruby 04:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable and vanity. EdGl 04:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, and likely vanity. --Kinu 04:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable at this time. --Krich (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ruby --kingboyk 07:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Prodego ^talk 14:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 09:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. W.marsh 02:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kathy Vavrick-O'Brien, Gina Crews, Patricia Jackson, Kelly Goldsmith, Teresa Cooper, Zoe Zanidakis, Lindsey Richter

Voted off Survivor, now vote her off Wikipedia Ruby 04:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Reciprocating delete We may have missed some. --BadSeed 04:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Any useful information about these individuals (which is probably none) should only be on the respective Survivor page. --Kinu 04:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This should be on the Survivor page not on an article of its own since they are not very notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete - Merge any information into the Survivor article. Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 06:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu, save for what little, if any, is worth merging per Tvaughn05. --Aaron 06:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable at this time. --Krich (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Prodego ^talk 14:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.--み使い Mitsukai 01:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. W.marsh 03:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Rector, Robert DeCanio, Peter Harkey, Gabriel Cade, Carl Bilancione, Frank Garrison, Clarence Black, Silas Gaither

Voted off Survivor, now vote him off Wikipedia Ruby 04:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• delete per above --BadSeed 04:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Any useful information about these individuals (which is probably none) should only be on the respective Survivor page. --Kinu 04:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu, save for what little, if any, is worth merging per Tvaughn05. --Aaron 06:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable at this time. --Krich (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Prodego ^talk 14:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.--み使い Mitsukai 01:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 03:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viridian design movement

Non-notable, appears to fail WP:WEB, has only 186 unique Google hits when you remove the founders' name. Might be worth merging into Bruce Sterling. Aaron 04:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Bruce Sterling. There's a perfectly good section on this topic on his page, and because the two are interconnected, and because I don't see much expansion in the near future, having it in one article would be ideal. --Kinu 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the movement is notable enough to warrant whole issue in two well known magazine [7][8]. --Salix alba (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Salix alba Prodego ^talk 14:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Whatever the final consensus is on this article is fine by me - I only discovered it while digging around trying to figure out what was going on with the bright green article - but I do want to say that I'm not sure Salix alba's cites are particularly mainstream. Bruce Sterling appears to have had a very long personal relationship with the Whole Earth Magazine (which is out of business), so it's not at all surprising they let him edit an issue. As for Time Digital, it was not Time magazine, but an offshoot magazine about the Net that didn't last very long (and doesn't appear to even have a WP stub about it). --Aaron 17:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is note-worthy for reasons explained above. Perhaps it should be expanded. --Loremaster 18:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above ikh (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity of Viet Nam Fatalities

Rambling, marginally comprehensible, problems with tone (frequent use of "I think"), problems with NPOV. Looks like a chunk of someone's paper, cut and paste without context. Might also be interpreted as containing ethnic slurs, although the prose is so convoluted I couldn't quite decide. Delete, unless someone's willing to do a massive cleanup - Csari 04:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not at all clear why it is relevant to anything at all. At best should have some elements merged into various other articles on the Vietnam war. JoshuaZ 05:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If it looks like an essay and sounds like an essay... --Kinu 05:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd say it wasn't much of an essay. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This essay isn't relevant to anything (not even to its own title!) Completely worthless crap. Grandmasterka 05:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I didn't find much I would consider merging anywhere else --Krich (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteper above Prodego ^talk 15:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Is this some school essay? I really couldn't be bothered reading it after the second line, it's terrible. Nothing to clean up here. Average Earthman 15:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (by nominator) - if it is a school essay, I suspect it failed! Csari 20:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's so badly-written I couldn't go past the first couple of lines. -- Mithent 22:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as mess.Blnguyen 05:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per the nomination. It's downright painful to read. Maybe, theoretically, it could be cleaned up into something useful on the subject, but it would involve such a massive rewrite as to totally junk the article and start anew. --Wingsandsword 09:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.--み使い Mitsukai 01:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Drummond

I'm not sure what this is. I wasn't able to find any hits searching the web for this material. Fiction? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The subject is not notable just for running around in certain circles, and the recovered letters are not notable because Victorian days are well documented Ruby 05:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, at best this uncontextualized guff is Historical FictionCruft, at worst patent nonsense. ++Deiz 13:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteper above Prodego ^talk 15:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is written as a fictional short story. The actual existence of this person is unverifiable, and this person sounds non-notable if existant. TheKMan^talk 19:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — www.thepeerage.com indicates she existed; was the daughter of Andrew Agnew, and married Thomas Henry Clifton. So there is some element of truth to it. — RJH 17:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Still, can't really see how this person would be notable. — TheKMan^talk 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stash

non-notable artist whose entry in the Wikipedia was crafted by 'LNF Productions' who also happens to manage him... Sukiari 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and related AfD. --Kinu 05:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC JoshuaZ 05:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• You cannot be serious! How can you delete Slash?! Oh. It's Stash. He's not notable yet, so Delete per JoshuaZ --kingboyk 08:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 15:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable per WP:MUSIC. — TheKMan^talk 19:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Bad ideas 05:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable and advertisment. --Wingsandsword 09:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L.N.F. PRODUCTIONS

LNF productions: no records, 1 myspace page, and a whole lot of edits promoting their artists, all non-notable Sukiari 05:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. All Google hits are self-referential or Wikilinks. Definitely not-notable per WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 05:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if they were at all notable, they would be using WP and MySpace as their main promotional sites. Get these Wiki-abusers off! Camillus (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable company. — TheKMan^talk 19:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per all of the above. Bad ideas 05:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertisement. As Camillus said, if it had any notibility, it wouldn't be using MySpace and Wikipedia as main methods of promotion. --Wingsandsword 09:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment The creator of this article tried to blank this page, which I reverted. Posting here because I forgot to write it in the edit summary. This is the second time this page has been blanked. My vote remains unchanged. Bad ideas 05:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to noon. why not? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:20, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Noontide

Transwiki. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This belongs at Wiktionary, as the tag on the page indicates. Hbackman 05:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Noon, the second definition is an unknown or novel use Ruby 05:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to noon Prodego ^talk 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:22, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Susan Clancy

Seems to be primarily known for one book, article created by anon, does not link to or from anything else in WP. Despite the fact that I may look this book up myself, I'll have to call WP:VANITY on it and vote delete. SarekOfVulcan 05:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article is about Clancy's theory rather than a discussion of the notability of the author herself. WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  13:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 15:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious/Speedy keep, irresponsible nomination, even if the article may be lousy. Notable author whose work is viewed as significant by reputable sources. [9] [10] Roughly 10,000 Google hits for a Harvard University Press book published near the end of 2005 ought to demonstrate notability. Editors who make and support nominations like this, without making the slightest effort to check out the subject(s) involved, are more damaging to Wikipedia than garden-variety vandals, and should be discouraged more strongly. Monicasdude 15:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Apparently 217 Ghits rather than 10,000. We should all assume good faith. Dlyons493 Talk 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Response. [11] gives close to 10,000 hits, and a spot check in the first few hundred had every one I checked out referring to the book or the research underlying it. Too many AfDs are justified by ineptly framed Google searches; just because you can find a way to search that produces a low number of results proves nothing. And why didn't you assume good faith about my search comments? WP:AGF is not a mantra to invoke to deflect opinions or comments you disapprove of. Monicasdude 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment That search give 299 Ghits. And I wasn't commenting on your good faith. Dlyons493 Talk 18:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Actually, I did look at Google. That's how I determined "primarily known for one book".--SarekOfVulcan 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Author of a single book, with a 25% non-duplication rate from Google (=2400 or so hits, mostly stock-in-trade references) doesn't scream notability. I would perhaps be tempted to give it the benefit of the doubt if the article weren't so poor. As it stands, delete this. Eusebeus 19:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. 924 Google hits for "Susan Clancy" alien to weed out other Susan Clancys see [12].

She also does well on a Google scholar search [13]. Capitalistroadster 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Does very well on Lexis Nexis academic search; has appeared on NPR, her book was reviewed in the New York Times, and wrote an article in the (London) Times Higher Education Supplement. [14]. Bad ideas 05:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster and Bad ideas; widely reviewed book by major press; Amazon rank ca. 19,000-- not sure if this means 5,000 sales guideline is likely to have been met.--MayerG 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep. alien abductionists want to hide this from you ;-). -- Waveguy 06:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete A8. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOLL SOLL

A kids' baseball league. I {{prod}}ed this earlier, but the template was removed on the basis that it's been around since 1981. It is, despite being 25 years old, inherently non-notable. Community-based sports for the kids might be beneficial and all-round good fun, but there's nothing encyclopaedic about them. Delete BadSeed 05:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Age does not make this notable, and such organizations exist everywhere. Also a WP:Copyvio: the content is lifted directly from the linked website. --Kinu 05:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Added Speedy (A8) tags to this, as page is less than 48 hours old. Remove if contested. --Kinu 06:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Kinu. Ardenn 07:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:25, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Archie Miles

Editing history shows many edits inserting advertorial content, page is largely vanity oriented. Non-notable photographer attempting to sell his wares. Sukiari 05:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Reeks of vanity. --Kinu 05:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 10:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete VanityAdCruftTastic ++Deiz 13:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 15:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity.Blnguyen 05:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity article. --Wingsandsword 09:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:25, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Smash Power Rankings

Not notable, most likely. A list that doesn't give a source, and 14 Google hits. Evil saltine 05:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, vanity, and gamecruft. --Kinu 05:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu Ruby 05:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not well written and WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 10:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 15:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Definitely non-notable. -- Mithent 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 09:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per kinu. Bad ideas 08:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Pathoschild: CSD A7 --lightdarkness 05:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan g. thompson

Delete as vanity. Google searches for "Nathan G. Thompson" and "Nathan Thompson" turn up no pages about this particular Nathan G. Thompson, as far as I can tell. Hbackman 05:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy no claim of notability, USCGA is not a D1 school and there is no indication that he actually even attends there. -Drdisque 05:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:32, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Strategy of Settlers of Catan

Original research, unlikely to be encyclopedic ever. Scott Ritchie 05:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The "reference" is a blog entry... need I say more? Definitely should've been {{prod}}ed! :) --Kinu 06:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 15:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. — TheKMan^talk 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I play this boardgame and it's notable among strategy games, but a strategy article about the game is not encyclopedic. A pretty good article, but Wikipedia is not a gamers' guide. I don't think this should even be merged into the parent article. Barno 19:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination: Original Research. --Wingsandsword 09:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Great game, un-encyclopedic article. Essexmutant 05:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 13:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parasite singles

Not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. Does not cite sources. This appears to be little more than a concept from some sociology paperback, which likely masks some political or cultural agenda. Suggestions for what else to do (merge) with this article are welcome. Shoehorn 05:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep relates to Japanese sociological phenomenon of children refusing to engage with outside world, certainly notable, and has had media coverage, but article needs work. A related concept is Amae. -- Paul foord 06:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Amae is not a related concept. --Mkill 19:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Possibly merge or redirect to Hikikomori Paul foord 06:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Hikikomori, as some of the topics mentioned on this page are mentioned there, so expansion would be helpful. Further, hikikomori is a term that is more commonly known and accepted (especially as per a recent NYT article). --Kinu 06:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)After review, I abstain per my lack of proper knowledge on the topic to make a judgment. --Kinu 17:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitely do not merge with Hikikomori, because Hikikomori is a severe disorder, while "parasite single" can refer to people with jobs and active social lives who are still living with mom and dad. AnonMoos 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• I am quite leery of a sociological topic that is getting a lot of current media coverage, particularly in this era of Fox News. This needs more than a NYT article, and a more thorough history going back several years. Shoehorn 06:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- I have no idea if it's a validated social-science concept, but if it's getting wide media discussion, then it's notable on that basis. AnonMoos 07:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a well-written article that explains the concept's significance quite well, although it could probably use more citation. It's not the same thing as hikikomori and I feel it deserves its own article (but I'm no expert on Japanese social concepts...) Grandmasterka 07:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs sources but a useful article. 714 Google results but include verifiable sources such as the BBC and USA Today [15]

No doubt, a search in Japanese would come up with more. A Google book search came up with three pages showing the term is commonly used. [16] Google Scholar comes up with 76 results too [17]. Both verifiable and a notable phenomenon in Japanese society. [18]

• Strong keep. Notable. jdb ❋ (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - The topic is well known in Japan, in frequency of usage probably comparable to Yuppie in the US. Hikkikomori is a related but definitely different subject. (Disclaimer: I am one of the major contributors to the article, and also contributed significantly to Hikkikomori. I am also no Japanese, and have no political or cultural agenda beyond improving the coverage of Japan in Wikipedia) -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The concept of Yuppies has been around for decades. Can you establish a history for this term longer than the past few years? Otherwise it seems like popular slang. At the same time, I'd like to see some evidence that this is a recent social phenomenon, and not something that has happened almost everywhere throughout history -- I mean come on, kids living with their parents is nothing new. Shoehorn 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Kids living with their parents is nothing new, but a large fraction of people in their twenties feeling no real pressure to marry or contribute to household expenses, and spending almost all their income on discretionary purchases, is fairly new... AnonMoos 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Especially in a society where early marriage is normal and expected. Oh, and the term "yuppie" dates to 1984, and I seriously doubt that you would have used the "only the past few years" test in the 1988 equivalent of Wikipedia. "Recent sociological phenomenon" is, strangely enough, recent. --Calton | Talk 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Why is this social phenomenon significant? Shoehorn 03:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Oh, I don't know, maybe because it's a significant alteration in a conservative society's behavior and affects everything from economics to the country's low birthrate. The multiple Google Scholar and Google Book hits might have been the tiniest clue as to significance. A better question is, why do you keep asking pointless rhetorical questions? --Calton | Talk 07:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Why do I ask rhetorical questions? Because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not some spurious letter to the editor about "those darn kids who won't get jobs." Please, show me something more than a crackpot theory about a "conservative society" and a 500 word article in the Times. Shoehorn 10:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
              • On a side note, Shoehorn, could you try a more neutral language. Calling it bullshit or crackpot theory does not aid a factual discussion. Also, as another info, the German article on this topic has 1100 words and the Japanese one has 900 words. Thanks. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
                • What part of The multiple Google Scholar and Google Book hits might have been the tiniest clue as to significance did you overlook? Multiple? Scholar? Books? Clue? --Calton | Talk 00:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The topic is of great importance on current japanese society.-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 14:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please provide research to back up this position. Shoehorn 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Try here: "Parasites in Prêt-à-Porter", from the New York Times, July 1, 2001 (Requires TimesSelect subscription) and "Japan's 'parasite singles'". Also, assuming you're serious, browse through Google Book excerpts while you're at it. --Calton | Talk 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not personally impressed by these sources, as material on which to construct an encyclopedia entry. Only time will tell if this social/political straw man is worth noting. Shoehorn 03:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course you're not impressed: you keep asking questions which have been answered and ignore references which meet at least minimal standards of genuine scholarship in favor of denigrating and loaded language to dismiss it. It's clear you have, for whatever reason, already decided what this is, evidence or arguments to the contrary be damned. Whether your motive is stubbornness, embarrassment, prejudice, axe-grinding, or contrariness on your part is immaterial: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above Prodego ^talk 15:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've read this article before and found it to be informative. --AlexWCovington (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ~ 1000 google hits on the English phrase alone, with a 50% non-duplication rate. Presumably JP:WP has a better entry on this and it could be used to tidy up this one, which needs some help. Eusebeus 19:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known sociological topic in Japan. Within *.go.jp sites, "parasite singles" gets about 29 google hits and search in Japanese produces about 148 google hits. --Kusunose 01:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Real phenomenon, though the article needs more definitive sources. --Calton | Talk 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Genuine phenomenon in Japan, worth an encyclopedia article. Fg2 09:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

136,000 Google hits in Japanese. No close connection with hikkomori. Fg2 09:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a genuine phenomenon, acknowledged and discussed by many Japanese-language sources as well as many other sources including CNN, the BBC, and the NY Times. Not, as the original poster suggested, "a concept from some sociology paperback, which likely masks some political or cultural agenda." LordAmeth 11:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This one's an easy decision. CES 12:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a genuine phenomenon in Japan, similar to that of the Twixter problem in the US, British NEETs or similar ones elsewhere.--み使い Mitsukai 16:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - "some concept from a sociology paperback" is actually enough for a keep, so thanks to Shoehorn for giving the reason. Even if is more like "a pile of paperbacks and lots of scientific papers" in the present case. Bless ignorance. --Mkill 19:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The article needs work, but this is indeed a genuine phenomenon. It's been the subject of countless press articles, and as a personal note, I know many of these parasite singles myself. --awh (Talk) 02:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Chris 73 Lyo 04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep notable topic. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable subject and, again, a very real phenomenon. If the article is cleaned up then Strong Keep. --Every1blowz 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a reposted copyvio. —Cryptic (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Barrett

Falls under Wikipedia:Autobiography, as Chrisbarrett2006 created it. In addition, a previous VfD resulted in a deletion.

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

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

The result of the debate was — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:37, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Sententiae

Delete. Non-notable, and the site is apparently now defunct anyway. Hbackman 06:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, and, if it wasn't an open source project, I'd call it advertising. --Kinu 06:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ardenn 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, smells of WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 10:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Prodego ^talk 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A Non Notable, defunct, go-nowhere project. --Wingsandsword 09:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 13:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JBT

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Hbackman 06:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Kinu 06:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into List of political epithets. AnonMoos 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps it should be redone as an article under Jack Booted Thugs discussing the increasing militarization of law enforcment and disregard of civil rights. --O.F.Fascist 09:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Prodego ^talk 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Nothing more than a dicdef, delete. Average Earthman 15:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing it back to form the original redirect seems appropriate to me. Keep as redirect to Jervis Bay Territory. Average Earthman 12:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The Jervis Bay Territory is a significant concept in Australian politics. The acronym is noted on the Australian government website discussing the territory [19]. The redirect has been in place since June, 2004 it was replaced by an obsucre definition in January, 2005 and then sent to AfD a month later. Cedars 01:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 15:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marehan

Unverified, non-notable. Delete Ardenn 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Passes the Google test for me. Fagstein 06:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though verification will be challenging (no census in Somalia since 1975). Possibly redirect to Darod. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be legit, as I found a Human Rights Watch piece about Somalian warlords mentioning Marehan[20]. I also found mention of Siad Barre here[21]. btm _talk 07:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Fagstein Prodego ^talk 15:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Fagstein and Btm, a legit article. --Wingsandsword 09:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Magic, Inc.

Advertisement, vanity. nn. Delete Ardenn 06:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:VSCA. Content here is not worth merging back into the ABS-CBN article. --Kinu 06:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. There is no direct endorsement of the company stated there. It is just a clear and detailed description of the company. Kevin nico 02:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Anything salvagable can be merged back into ABS-CBN.--み使い Mitsukai 01:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Pierremenard 08:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the ABS-CBN article. Howard the Duck 17:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete —Cleared as filed. 15:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You Call This Music?! Volume 2

Delete; non-notable, with only 64 Googles. King of Hearts | (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep; Does only 64 google entries really cause an entry to be non-notable? What number of google entries makes something notable? 64 isn't pages and pages of results, but seems like a large enough number to remain notable. PS-My search brought up 69.... Madangry 00:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the preceding comment was made by the creator of the article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I second that verification. But King of Hearts, you did not answer the question. And I still have no idea how google can be a basis of non-notability. Madangry 00:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • (copied from User talk:King of Hearts#How many entries?): The Google test is just a rough guideline to check for notability, and less than 100 results probably isn't enough. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • For future voters on this article, copied from The Google test: "This technique works reasonably well for weeding out hoaxes, fictions, and personal theories and hypotheses. It can also be used to ascertain whether a topic is of sufficiently broad interest to merit inclusion in the wiki, though this application is highly subject to bias...In some cases, articles have been kept with Google hit counts as low as 15 and some claim that this undermines the validity of the Google test in its entirety. However, in fact, this reflects on the rather uneven and subjective nature of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process more than on the usefulness of the Google test. The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an imperfect tool used to produce a general gauge of notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive." .Madangry 00:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • See User talk:King of Hearts#How many entries? for additional thoughts on Google relevance for underground punk albums. Madangry 01:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Given that Wikipedia is mainstream, doesn't adding underground punk acts compromise their rebellious spirit (or some other inane excuse the glue-sniffing retards use for living in a slum and making music that sounds like a man vomiting on a microphone). --Agamemnon2 10:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What is up with personal feelings on this deletion? Deletion should have nothing to do with personal feelings toward a subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Remember that. (PS-Agamemnon: your user page says you listen to Iron Maiden....and this according to my own personal feelings (since we're doing that now) is what a band sounds like making music that "sounds like a man vomiting on a microphone.") Madangry 15:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless of what you think about including or not including "punk acts" and how it would comprimise those "punk acts" that does not mean Wikipedia does not already have punk album-related articles and that compromising their spirit means it should be deleted. Look under Wikipedia deletion FAQs. Madangry 15:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Honestly, I haven't seen any proper or real rationales given to either keep or delete this article. Johnleemk | Talk 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, it has potential. Ardenn 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Difficult. It read like a promotional release, but I've cleaned it up a little. I think at the end of the day if the record label is notable this ought to be considered notable too? --kingboyk 08:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks promotional, and is non-notable by Google. - CorbinSimpson 19:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand This can be made into a useful article yet - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Some (only a few) of the bands on this compilation have articles on them, so maybe if one could check out these articles for notability, then it could maybe decide whether we should delete this article or not. Check the bands on the compilation You Call This Music?! Volume 1 as well. EdGl 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Cleanup would be a good idea! I agree with Kingboyk... Madangry 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This user has voted twice. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless the article comes to make some sort of claim of notability. Tuf-Kat 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• COMMENT In response to notability, added an excerpt from an OC Weekly SPOTLIGHT review which was published shortly after the release and still available online after a quick search. No contest the reviewer saw the CD as quite notable, if not a great impact to the genre. Madangry 21:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

**Comment. Madangry, are you sure that excerpt doesn't violate WP:COPY? EdGl 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment Should I change it to a link to said article? [22] I was basically trying to provide evidence of notability. Please advise. Madangry 22:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Obvious Keep, compilation was released by a notable record label and was given an OC Weekly review... EdGl 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ...and the bands on this compilation cd are notable; "Toys That Kill" gets 72,900 Google hits "Jag Offs" gets 11,700 Google hits "Nazis from Mars" gets 12,500 Google hits "Intro5pect" gets 25,500 Google hits "Operation Cliff Clavin" gets 89,500 Google hits "Peelander-Z" gets 60,600 Google hits "Lipstick Pickups" gets 19,600 Google hits "The Devil is Electric" gets 11,000 Google hits EdGl 01:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower ^háblame 08:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor League News

spam ccwaters 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -Drdisque 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup Akerensky99 05:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• AfD is not a bloody vote. Johnleemk | Talk 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  While I agree, what are you getting at here? What is this in response to? —Cleared as filed. 05:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  What debate is this? I count one pure vote ("cleanup"), a one-word nomination ("spam") and a half-vote ("per nom"). There's no debate, no attempt to even show this is non-notable. If a CNN staffer (for the sake of it, assume CNN is red) created a spammy article about CNN, I wouldn't AfD it -- I'd clean it up into a one-word stub if it appears notable. Johnleemk | Talk 16:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  Well, does this appear notable? Sometimes things obviously aren't, and there's no point having a "debate" then. This article doesn't exactly compare with CNN. If someone wants to assert the notability of this article, then we can start having a debate. —Cleared as filed. 16:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  If it didn't assert notability, it would have been speedied. Although on second thought, I think only biographies not asserting notability are speedieable. I think my point still stands, though. By default, anything on Wikipedia is notable enough for inclusion as per AGF. Nominating it on AfD means you should show in good faith why the article subject should not be included. There's not even an explanation of why this is considered spam. I've seen far spammier articles than this. Johnleemk | Talk 16:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  Here is some history: User_talk:Ccwaters#"Promotion" of website The author User:Mlnsports did nothing but create redundant categories involving minor league hockey for the sole purpose of linking back to his advertisement. ccwaters 17:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  So why couldn't you have said that in the nomination in the first place? :p Johnleemk | Talk 17:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Clear WP:VSCA, as the author is Mlnsports. Notability is contested. --Kinu 06:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The original author's behavior is not grounds for deleting the article if it otherwise meets inclusion criteria. It appears to be a substantive resource covering a newsworthy/notable subject in greater scope/depth than any comparable web resource. Wikipedia devotes extensive space to commercial enterprises like Pokemon and interminable displays of obsession with commercially successful but artisitcally insubstantial musical performers. Most of the "nonnotable" "votes" amount to little more than individual editors saying "I have no interest in the field and have never heard of the subject of the article"; those are not valid grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 20:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Alexa ranking is 464,010... I don't know much about alexa.com, but I know some Wikipedians make reference to it, and 464,010 sounds like a relatively bad ranking... EdGl 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable site and advert/spam. MCB 07:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As non-notable, as well as advertisment. --Wingsandsword 09:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. -- Pierremenard 08:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 15:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gar alperovitz

Smells like a vanity page to me Deville (Talk) 06:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable academic, with a long list of pieces in major publications [23]. The list only dates back to 1996, so I'm sure he has many more. The page needs to be moved for capitalization. Also, while the page may well be a vanity page, I have serious doubts. It just seems that if it had been written by Gar Alperovitz it would not be so sloppy and would be significantly longer, but maybe he just found wiki markup confusing. btm _talk 07:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no evidence that this is autobiographical; it is posted from an IP belonging to Virginia Commonwealth University rather than Alperovitz's own University of Maryland. As he is obviously notable, it really doesn't matter much. "Gar Alperovitz" gets 45,300 hits on Google (I doubt there are many others with that name), 933 hits on Google Books, and 249 hits on Google Scholar. His 1965 book Atomic diplomacy which has been republished in at least three additional editions (1966, 1985 and 1994), is available in thirteen Swedish research libraries in its first English edition alone, and a Swedish translation was published in 1973. Tupsharru 09:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Move to Gar Alperovitz. --AlexWCovington (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep, some cleanup required. Nomination borders on vandalism. Monicasdude 20:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Gar Alperovitz. Notability is obvious. As for the nomination, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Ikkyu2 21:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tupsharru and Ikkyu2. EdGl 22:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Move to Gar Alperovitz also a good idea. Cleanup definitely needed too. An article in poor shape, but appears to a notable academic. (sorry, forgot to sign this earlier) --Wingsandsword 19:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to Gar Alperovitz. The problem is not the nomination but a wholly unreferenced article with a mis-capitalized title that made its content seem suspect. Cleanup needed.--MayerG 05:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Move per above. Include redirect. Notable author and academic. TMS63112 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Changing my vote to Keep, see below, Delete - his citation record on Google Scholar is wholly non-notable. Most academics accumulate similar citation/publication records over the course of their careers. If we keep him, then we need pages for most US academics. -- Pierremenard 08:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm a US academic. Most of us do not accumulate a similar record.--MayerG 15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, he has 28 citations. I do believe that most academics can surpass 28 citations, no? -- Pierremenard 02:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC) . Oops, did not count citations at the end of his record. 48 citations. Still less than average for a career number, no? -- Pierremenard 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Why do you think it is relevant to focus on one and only one of the indications of notability I mentioned above. Why do you think Google Scholar alone gives an accurate picture of an academic who has been active since the 1960s, when it has a bias towards electronic publications from the last few years? The fact that his dissertation from 1965 has been re-published thrice and translated to Swedish, a language with a much smaller book market than English, says something, doesn't it? (BTW, checking the KVK, I now find a German translation from 1966, as well as a German translation of one of his other books, in German titled Hiroshima: die Entscheidung für den Abwurf der Bombe.) Are you just trying to be the Devil's Advocate? Tupsharru 06:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        • You are right. I don't know how I missed your comment above on this page - you have clearly established notability. -- Pierremenard 07:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:40, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Johnny cash euchre

Non notable card game. No verifiable details about origin or popularity. Possible hoax. Delete TheRingess 06:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. No GHits found. I wouldn't be surprised if this game was invented one afternoon after watching Walk the Line. --Kinu 06:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. --Wingsandsword 10:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki. W.marsh 23:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Seventh of March Speech

Transwiki to Wikisource and delete. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki as per Zoe Obli (Talk) 12:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 22:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:41, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Kristen Peck

Unverifiable. Likely hoax. No hits in IMDB. — TheKMan^talk 06:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No GHits or IMDb information to support. --Kinu 06:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Adrian Lamo ·· 12:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  22:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. EdGl 22:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom (after blanked by 24.70.95.203). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, and don't bite the nominator, either. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:45, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] My Ticket Outta Here

Vanity, advertisement, nn. Delete Ardenn 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Three whopping results for "my ticket outta here" "curtis akey" on Google. Doesn't seem very notable to me. --Kinu 06:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems viable. Just because Google hasn't found it does not necessarily make in not worthy of note. Kukini 07:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not (yet) notable. btm _talk 07:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Joe 18:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 10:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet notability criteria Bad ideas 07:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Bad faith nom, made 2 minutes after article's creation. User:Ardenn also attempted to remove references as vandalism. don't bite the newcomers. -- Vansig 21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Assume good faith. Ardenn 22:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - don't see any reasons for notability. -- Pierremenard 08:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I-toy

Non-notable... whatever it is. Some kind of technology. The article isn't even descriptive enough to say what.

• Delete pure nonsense TheRingess 06:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete BJAODN. Ardenn 06:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Speedy delete Ardenn 07:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: G1. It's nonsense. Not even worth a BJAODN. --Kinu 07:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 17:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panty Waste

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panty Waste

User:Pickelbarrel, who previously created Panty waste wrote this article. Random exhibits in art galleries don't get encyclopedia articles. Rhobite 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: G4. Also, might be worth a {{deletedpage}}. --Kinu 07:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a speedy candidate, it is not substantially identical to a deleted article. Rhobite 07:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks the same to me, per the description on the original AfD page (such as the link which goes to a page of pictures with "Art" beneath each and the unencyclopedic advertisement). Of course, without seeing the original I can't be 100% sure. --Kinu 07:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      • That was speedy deleted out of process. Should have gone through the full AfD. Rhobite 07:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, gotcha... wasn't aware of the lack of process on that one. In that case, I'll change my vote to plain ol' delete. Still might be worth the {{deletedpage}}, based on the persistence of the user in question to keep producing this and similar articles. One has to wonder what his connection is to the topic (i.e., possible vanity). --Kinu 07:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
          • My connection was not a coincedence, emperor Cenestrad] came across the article while I was triing to make an article about the term panty waste, and suggested that it would make a legitimate article. I am not as knowing as many wiipedians, so its hard for me to contribute on some of the more comples articles...but this one hadnt been written yet, so it was a bit easier. The museum is a real place, although it is only open one for a couple of weeks every year. I think with help it may become a pretty good article, and will attempo to kep working on it even while its being considered for deletion.pickelbarrel 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
            • There's no indication that this is anything more than a one-time exhibit in a gallery. It seems to have opened in 2003, and it doesn't look like the exhibit is there anymore. Obviously we can't make articles about every art gallery exhibit. Rhobite 19:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
            • I had found info of at least three years(i beleive) of this exhibit running. But I was blocked for a month for writing this article before i could add the info(My block was eventually reverted). I will try to relocate the information, but dont assume that just because we only have the one date so far, that is the only date. I am also Triing to get ahold of Ricky Lee to see if she can add info. If you do not like the article I respect your oppinion, but I do hope the silliness of blocking editors because they have written an article that the knowing ones veiw as being beneath wikipedia ceases. Noone is so smart that they cant still learn from a childpickelbarrel 19:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I almost forgot to vote...Although I acknowledge it needs to be expanded. user:karmafist has been feeling a little beat up, and I thought his emotions were more important than any immediate work on this article. pickelbarrel 22:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Google search on "panty waste" "underwear museum" brings up only 20 hits, and articles about every individual art gallery exhibit seem unnecessary. - dharmabum 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I tried the "more reasonable" "panty waste" +museum search, and only around 10 of the first 50 hits (297 total) were about the actual exhibit; they were mostly about other topics with use of "panty-waste" as misspellings of the invective "panty-waist". - dharmabum 07:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So that would average out at about 60 hits by my math...I think that checking "panty waste" + "art" might give a more accurate result of related articles, allowing for articles that talk about pieces featured in at Panty Waste as well pickelbarrel 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A more reasonable search of "Panty Waste" + museum netted over 300 hits. Sites indicate that this museum has been open 3 years (I found listings for events at the museum in 2003, 2004 & 2005) Plus notable bay area artist have created art specific to the museum. Needs work but worth working on. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As near as I can tell this is not a museum, but rather an exhibit in a museum, albeit a long-running one. As such it has does not need its own article, although this information might be used in an article on the Balazo gallery. Dsmdgold 15:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So your vote would be actually Merge if there existed an article on the Balazo gallery? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose so, although for purposes of balance this should probably warrant only a line or two within the larger article. (I assume that the gallery has run many exhibitions, so unless this is a permanent feature it should only be mentioned in passing.) Dsmdgold 16:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as before per WP:BALLS. Stifle 16:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That was a foolish thing to say. This may be a nonnotable exhibit but it is far from bollocks. Check the link if you need to and you will fing that even if the exhibit is not encyclopedic it does exsist. So don't add monkey gibber and think before you type. If you can't do that than block yourself for a day or two. This I Order For The Common Good.--The Emperor of Wikipedia 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the Emperor. Kappa 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above per the Emperor--SammyTerry 23:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The above user has 12 edits, all of them to AfD pages or own user page. Rhobite 15:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. No further debate or action required. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheder Chabad Lubavitch

A school of 30 kids is not notable, note that this school may share the name of other schools with the same name. Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable. --Kinu 07:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The author of this page has since redirected it and merged it into another article. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 15:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal

Advertisement, vanity. nn. Delete Ardenn 07:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep: If you looked at the pages that linked to the article, you would see that it is very notable - the organization obtained a court interdict blocking the publication of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. You will also see them mentioned in this regard if you do a search on Google News. Their actions is likely to raise important constitutional questions in South Africa about freedom of speech. That in itself should prove sufficient justification for keeping the article.

In addition, it also appears to be a notable group in its own right, with significant political influence [24]. Park3r 07:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep: they are a significant and recognized Islamic organization, with published material read and followed by Muslims well beyond South Africa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.90.160.162 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Park3r. Can't see how it fits into "advertisement" or "vanity". Camillus (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Park3r Dlyons493 Talk 17:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful -- Marvin147 02:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Significant enough in the news that it's notable and verifyable. --Wingsandsword 10:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't like the idea that "one-hit wonders" get their spot on Wikipedia as they are unlikely to pass the ten year test (i.e. will they be remembered in 10 years' time?). While the organisation is fairly well-known in South Africa, they have achieved fame primarily through this ruling (which is quite significant and is likely to be appealed by several newspapers). BUT, they are not famous in their own right; the article itself does not quote third party verifiable sources to prove the importance of the subject. Zunaid 12:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no merge required as info is already there). The organisation is not notable enough to have an individual article, but the ruling should (and does) get a mention. Zunaid 12:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Zbot

Software with no discernible notability, alexa rank for project page of 904,570 Ruby 07:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Content and links make it look like my favorite portmanteau. --Kinu 08:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. --Wingsandsword 10:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Adriana Acorah

Delete. This is Billie_joe121's third "Adriana" hoax page. See the AfD votes for Adriana Brady and Adriana Rogers. As for this article, IMDB lists no Adriana Acorah on the show Footballers Wives. The timeline of this hoax does not line up with Bianca Perez's actual marriage to Mick Jagger. 1 The clothing store ownership claims are equally silly. Vslashg 07:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. btm _talk 07:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu 07:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination: a hoax --Wingsandsword 10:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and I concur with the issuance of a final warning to the creator. He's just wasting our time. --kingboyk 21:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete time wasting hoax Swilk 07:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Wires on fire

Not a speedy because they have "played the notable SXSW festival twice" but they are "currently in the studio recording their debut album" Ruby 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete now, write a new one when they have 2 albums or a billboard hit. At least the article is not breif. feydey 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Wingsandsword 10:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Mr 9mm

Not patent nonsense but leaning quite to the bullocks side, unless Mr 9mm is supposed to be a character in something. Ruby 07:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Also meets WP:VAIN; creator is Mr 9mm. Since this is pretty ridiculous, it might be fun to BJAODN or userfy it. --Kinu 07:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. Ardenn 07:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like bollocks to me. Gimboid13 09:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete some kid using Wikipedia as a brain-dump for his imagination - not even funny enough for WP:BJAODN - just patent nonsense. Camillus (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I don't think this deserves a reason. Bobby1011 18:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy, then delete. WP:BALLS. Ikkyu2 21:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, joke and not a very good one at that. Bad ideas 07:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Mundoon

Small, non-notable town. Delete Ardenn 07:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. 5000-6000 inhabitants? I wouldn't call that small, really. It deserves to stay.SoothingR 07:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable.SoothingR 08:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• CommentDelete: Google yielded nothing to the existence of this town. Abstain until someone can verify its existence one way or the other. Ruby's research/knowledge, which I trust, seems to corroborate that. --Kinu 07:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC); updated Kinu 08:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Golly that's a nice compliment, Kinu. Ruby 14:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There's no town of Mundoon, there's a place called "Mundoon Waterhole" in Queensland but it doesn't have 6000 people, no way. Ruby 07:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Here's two refs to Mundoon Waterhole [25] [26], but I agree with Ruby: Mundoon doesn't exist. --Aaron 08:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Here's beautiful downtown Muldoon Waterhole. --Aaron 08:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A Google search for Mundoon Queensland came up with nothing to verify this see [27]. On the other hand, a search for Mundoo, Queensland came up with 62,000 hits [28]. Mundoo seems to be near Cairns but I doubt that much coal is mined there - certainly Google came up with nothing to indicate that. Capitalistroadster 10:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I just checked my Macquarie World Atlas, an Australian atlas which has comprehensive coverage of Australia - no mention of Mundoon. Capitalistroadster 10:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• "
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 10:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)" Capitalistroadster 10:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Australia Post has no record of a town called "Mundoon", that's as definitive a test as I can think of. - Synapse 16:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This nomination is terse to the point of invalidation. There's no grounds to delete an article on an established locality, no matter how small. If the nomination is because the town doesn't exist, then say so. --AlexWCovington (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ruby. --Rory096 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete what was this guy thinking? Bobby1011 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Geoscience Australia search for Mundoon found nothing[29], found a proposal for a school at Mundoon, NSW[30]. Place would appear defunct if it ever existed. -- Paul foord 05:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• there is a town called Mundoona in Victoria (northwest of Shepparton) but it' not a coal mining area. I would therefore argue for a Delete. --Roisterer 07:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax--Porturology 10:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not because it's "non notable" (every town is notable as far as I'm concerned) but because it's unverifiable. --kingboyk 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Break the Record

The article itself states that this is a rumored title. Following that logic, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Furthermore, when I tried to look for sources on the internet, Google didn't throw up anything of use, so it seems to be a fanmade title as well. SoothingR 07:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No verification anywhere. If deleted, I would also revert Plus 44 to remove the information about this possibly hoax title. --Kinu 07:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:NOT --lightdarkness 07:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sarge Baldy 10:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hey, what up y'all. Bionic Jared here, I am the one who started this article and I know it's completely worthless. But I am only trying to make the Plus 44 article better by adding the images of Mark and Travis. Anyway, I have nothing against you guys deleting this article, 'cus I know it's crap. I'll wait in the future until Plus 44 makes their album title official then I'll see what I can do. Until then I'm going to search for other articles such as Plus 44 that I can make it to be better. Later, Bionic Jared 8:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 10:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eel Pie Boat

nn. Thought about listing this for speedy deletion but it's been around for a while. Maybe it could be merged with Eel Pie Island but I can't see much worth merging. Gimboid13 08:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability of the object (apparently someone's boat).--MayerG 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted under criterion A1. - Lucky 6.9 08:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Levad

Unverifiable and almost certainly non-notable. The subject is "pre-established" and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article also lacks context so badly that it's virtually impossible to tell what it's referring to—for this reason it might qualify as a speedy delete (CSD A1), but for now I'll just say delete. –Sommers ^(Talk) 08:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Nothing here whatsoever. Classic A1 speedy. Hell, if there isn't anything to say about it, why waste our time?  :) - Lucky 6.9 08:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:00, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Phooning

• Delete: vanity
• Delete. Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Urban or otherwise. --Kinu 08:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep eh? there's like 90,000 Google hits for "phooning" -- I think a couple of people might be attached to it. Adrian Lamo ·· 12:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? The count comes to 72 for me, omitting duplicated pages, and even fewer relevant ones for "phoon". Most of these are titles of photos, and many are related to the phoon.com website. So while I won't argue that this small following doesn't exist, the Google hits are out of distortion because these are not, by and large, websites about or even discussions mentioning phooning. Many are individual photos uploaded to shutterfly, etc. before being sent in to the phoon.com website. Davilla 23:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Weak delete as somewhat not-very notable by google hits. Turnstep 20:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed vote based on closer scrutiny of Google hits, per above. Turnstep 23:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. feydey 16:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanispamcruftisement --kingboyk 23:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was A7 speedy of previously deleted material. Author also used a highly abusive sockpuppet in an attempt to sway the vote. - Lucky 6.9 09:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Young Liberals of West Vancouver, Sunshine Coast and Sea-to-Sky Country

• Started off as a speedy, but there's some notability established. Trouble is, I can't verify the existence of this organization. Anyone in Western Canada familiar with these guys? - Lucky 6.9 08:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

They do exist, I'm in the riding and know about it, some of my friends are members however, the article has no useful content and could be considered spam. If a proper article were written, I would say keep but the current article has no point whatsoever.

• KeepProbably not, as it is a new club. Why don't you email the President of the Young Liberals of BC, Lucky? And why, may I ask, would we be making this up, eh Lucky? - Josh953 12:43am, 5 February 2006 (PST)

• Keep This organisation is a real organisation representing young Liberals in our riding. I take it as a personal offence that you have deleted our article based purely on your suspicions; and I ask you, what purpose would we have in mind for faking something such as this? Also, this is the first young liberal riding association outside of university clubs.- --Igman 08:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "the club held its inaugural meeting on January 29th, 2006"... hardly notable (yet). Seems more like free spamvertising. Most likely something established during one fine day a week ago. No surprise, feeding Google a partial name (to test for variations) finds nothing either. The comment on its talk page ("This page does not deserve deletion; a Republican hack is after us...") doesn't yield much legitimacy either. --Kinu 08:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• An entry for a Young Liberals club, one of the first of its kind and one that is averaging two new members a day, deserves deletion, but Kinu's page doesn't? I have yet to see how Mr. Kinu has established his notability. --Josh953 12:58, 5 February 2006 (PST)
  • I do not have an article about myself. User pages (preceded by User:) are separate entities from article pages. You can have one if you wish to create one as well. --Kinu 09:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• KeepMy oh my, Mr. Kinu; is that not a waste of space on Wikipedia? --Josh953 1:16, 5 February 2006 (PST)
  • The above vote was added by Igman. It is being struck as a double vote, as this user has voted elsewhere in this matter. See history for validation. --Kinu 05:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've blocked the above account. Only edits have been to the article in question, to this discussion and the creation of a vile, racist article regarding a non-existent political party whose platform was that of free showers to newly arrived Korean immigrants. - Lucky 6.9 09:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ugh. Delete as nn club, and form a Wikiproject to give free showers to newly arrived vanispamcruftisers (cold ones). --Malthusian (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable local club.Obina 13:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per A7. I don't see where notability has been established. --Aaron 17:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously nn. Eusebeus 19:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Eusebeus. Ardenn 00:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - there is already a page for the national YLOC - do we need to add chapters or this simply googlebombing? Tawker 04:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7 -- Samir |Talk ∙ Contribs | 07:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was k33p. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:02, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Realdoll

In a word, advertising. Delete TheRingess 09:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Page is kind of advertisy right now, but it's a pretty famous product. Not a huge loss if deleted, though. --Allen 18:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Not what I was expecting :), but certainly seems notable and verified, so keep. Turnstep 20:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, real product, has been the subject of articles in Salon & (if memory serves) Wired, well-known in "popular culture" of Slashdot & Fark. Though I regret citing Fark as a reason to keep something . . . Crypticfirefly 00:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- fairly notable as sex toys go. Haikupoet 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Fairly well known product. The article is written from a pretty advertisement standpoint, so it needs cleanup and NPOV, but it's a legitimate subject for an article. --Wingsandsword 10:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard of this one via 4Chan and Something Awful, and it's apparently very well known. Agree that the article does need cleanup and NPOV.--み使い Mitsukai 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep. as above. -- Waveguy 06:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite is a real and notable product, has been mentioned in legitimate sources. Bad ideas 07:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite as above Zelmerszoetrop 03:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- I feel that the doll has become fairly well known and generally gets a lot of attention because of its price tag as well. Needs some rewriting but I think worth keeping. Lummie 01:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep. as above.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:04, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Dirk Been

• DELETE - voted off a reality tv show (survivor), not enough information and not really notable as an article Arnzy 09:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Gimboid13 09:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Royboycrashfan 11:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete can't have an article on everyone ever tangentally involved in a reality show. Adrian Lamo ·· 11:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kinu 17:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP: other contestants have articles, first season of ground-breaking reality program, major person in lawsuit filed by Stacey Stillman. Will expand on article. Calwatch 21:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Adrian_Lamo --kingboyk 23:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as non-notable biography (CSD A7).--Alhutch 04:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noel Z. Gondek

Delete: Autobiographical, Not neutral point of view

• Delete nn, self promotion. Gimboid13 09:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, 28 google hits, blatant rip from his own blog, as if "hard-nosed" weren't a tipoff. Adrian Lamo ·· 12:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: good luck with the election, though! whatever it is he's running for. since i'll be very surprised if he doesn't show up here now ... Adrian Lamo ·· 12:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nnWhere (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. City council candidate = nn. --Kinu 17:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Also see the AfD nomination for Noel Gondek. --Kinu 02:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Campaigning on WP tsk tsk (hey, didn't I just say that?) Ruby 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower ^háblame 08:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campbell Mithun

Advertisement TheRingess 09:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, WP:VSCA. --Kinu 17:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep those who suggested a merge should consider following up on that. W.marsh 18:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heathian anarchism

This does not appear to be notable. Searching for this term on google provides 0 hits. Sarge Baldy 10:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, likely untrue.Amending my vote after further research. Cleanup and move to Spencer Heath. At the least, this title does not seem to be the correct term for the concept. First, cleanup would be beneficial, to remove the OR aspects, and then, move to an article on the individual. In other words, what Tearlach has already suggested below. --Kinu 17:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC); updated Kinu 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is irrelevant to inclusion in Wikipedia. See Jimbo's vote where he explains why the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is sufficient. So long as a topic satisfies the three Wiki criteria of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, it is legit. (Requesting deletion is a sleazy way to try to enforce your sectarian definition of "anarchism," Sarge.) Hogeye 20:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and re-use. While I think the article fairly reports Heath's political philosophy, the problem is that the term "Heathian anarchism" isn't used in any previous published discussion of Heath I can find, so it's a neologism and hence original research. But there's plenty online about Spencer Heath (e.g. here): why not use the material here in a Spencer Heath biographical article? Tearlach 20:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• A fringe group within a fringe group. Merge into the ancap article. // Liftarn

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. What nonsense! — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:06, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Hwg

Delete. Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Vslashg 10:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Surely protologism is now a CSD? -- RHaworth 10:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 11:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom Where (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. "No one knows how the phrase started" and no one cares. --Kinu 17:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 15:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PsyBNC

Poorly formatted, not much information Thorpe | talk 10:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The author doesn't seem to understand template use. ;) Royboycrashfan 10:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep There are 300,000+ Google hits for psyBNC. It's eminently notable, well-known software. Yes, the article sucks and the author was evidently unclear on the concept, but that doesn't mean we delete it and hope someone else creates it later. If it weren't 4AM, I'd fix it myself now, but I'll put it on my list of stuff to desuckify. Adrian Lamo ·· 11:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep are you serious? —This user has left wikipedia 19:20 2006-02-05
• Speedy keep. Formatting, template use, and lack of information are not grounds for deletion. They are grounds for improving the article via consensus editing. Ikkyu2 21:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy keep. one of the most used BNC applications. -Cyrock

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:07, Feb. 11, 2006

[edit] Deepa

• delete indian dicdef. Melaen 11:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Melaen Where (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as foreign language dicdef. This is English Wikipedia not Hindi Wikipedia or Wiktionary. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, English, Hindi or otherwise. --Kinu 17:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 03:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There seems to be some potential to make it into a disambiguation page on lines of Thomas. --Gurubrahma 06:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete --SammyTerry 23:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 11:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amebo

delete nigerian slang. Melaen 12:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• delete, then transwiki; dictdef Where (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, then transwiki, 13:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. 05:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 11:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Androidism

• delete neologism Melaen 12:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Sonds like a neologism to me, needs a WP:CITE. cf. Robot fetishism.
• Merge with robot fetishism - was a featured article in Bizarre magazine (who cover weird fetish stuff) about 18-24 months ago. Not sure if Androidism is the right word for it tough. Essexmutant 12:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism; <500 google hits Where (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable neologism. Googling both terms together only yields Wikilinks. --Kinu 17:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article's been expanded since the nom. -- Waveguy 06:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)