Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

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. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaelic punk

Another one of those really obscure genres, I've seen similar sub-sub-subgenres nominated before. Has 243 Google hits. O bli (Talk) 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Many signs on non-notabiliity. "new phenomenon," "Three bands to date have started recording in the medium of Gaelic." 00:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Bands are notable, and I have heard of all of them. --MacRusgail 14:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete google search for "gaelic punk" -wikipedia gives only 300 results. —This user has left wikipedia 01:15 2006-02-02
- Probably because many of the pages wouldn't be in English to begin with? --MacRusgail 14:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per everybody. Royboycrashfan 05:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
keep I'm an unabashed inclusivist, and this seems interesting. Cleanup required though. Akerensky99 05:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete because interesting and encyclopedic arent the same thing. (Signed: J.Smith) 05:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Achille -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep per cleanup. Savidan 07:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable genre. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn, it has been added to the music wikicities [1], no reason to keep here -- Astrokey44|talk 12:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep There's lot of categories of punk music, why not another one. Especially one thats interesting and worthwhile. Not just music but culture too! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.83.172.227 (talk • contribs).
Delete ridiculous sub-categorization. Although I eagerly await North Dublin-style Gaelic punk. Lord Bob 17:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
~~Reluctant~~ keep The article as currently drafted is poor, but I do think that it is likely to be an encyclopaedic topic. If we delete it, I am certain that it will pop up again, hopefully in better shape.--Mais oui! 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Revised to "Keep" after considering other comments: this is clearly a notable, encyclopaedic topic. It is just that the article is badly drafted, but we shouldn't bite the newbies just cos they're new.--Mais oui! 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not notable yet, may be notable in future if there are more than three bands. ←Hob 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, the article is a bit messy presently but its subject matter is not un-notable. --AlexWCovington (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - bands were featured recently on BBC programme. There are more obscure things on WP, why not this? Article is a mess at moment, though. Camillus (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Real enough, Maximumrocknroll has coverage of it and it's being retro fitted for the Pogues. Rx StrangeLove 06:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep interesting topic that I'm sure is useful. Logophile 11:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment, I realize that this topic is somewhat encyclopedic, but only if placed in the right place, perhaps a better place for it would be a note under an article about language preservation, or perhaps Gaelic language? What I'm saying is that it's only encyclopedic as an attempt to preserve a dying language, but not as a genre that only one notable group falls into. O bli (Talk) 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep article is still in its infancy and will be further developed and tidied. Yes, Gaelic punk and is featured in the Scottish media and is becoming a more widely used term for bands that not only sing in Gaelic but have 'Celtic' influences such as Flogging Molly and the Pogues. If Wikipedia encourages new writers to write on new topics then it goes against the spirit of free and democratic information if it is immediatley deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.83.172.227 (talk • contribs).
- Please note that this is the second vote from this anon user O bli (Talk) 20:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Also see feature in Punk Planet magzine on Gaelic Punk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.83.172.227 (talk • contribs).
Delete nn; too obscure. Carlossuarez46 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep - The criteria for notability can be satisfied. The sub-genre exists. There is even mention of this cultural phenomenon in recognised popular media sources. This one does not even require much consideration- it is, by its nature, a 'keep'. One caveat- the present state of the article is deplorable; lots of cleanup needed (inaccurate statements, POV-slanted phrasing, et cetera). → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 06:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. cleanup. -- Marvin147 23:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. --Khoikhoi 01:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
STRONG keep - an emerging genre. But move to "Scottish Gaelic punk". Irish and Manx are Gaelic too. --MacRusgail 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep funnily enough! This is my first submission to Wikipedia, any helpful comments and advice welcome. Layout and content is still being worked on. As to being obscure, isn't it the job of encylopedias to shed light? Yes, it certainly does exist as is evidenced by the 268,000 Google hits on the term and international media coverage. What other minority 'interests' should we delete from Wikipedia? Scots Gaelic punk would be more relevant if we only take language into account. It is argued that you can't be a Gael without Gaelic. However, some of the bands mentioned do have influences rooted in traditonal Gaelic culture, for example use of the bagpipes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seonaidh (talk • contribs).
Keep definitely looks interesting, notable. ikh (talk) 02:15, 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 after TransWiki. Mailer Diablo 00:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coney island whitefish

As far as I know, Wikipedia still isn't a slang dictionary. - Bobet 00:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete pn. HA! I never knew there was a word for that. O bli (Talk) 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete and move to Urban Dictionary. —This user has left wikipedia 01:14 2006-02-02
Delete. Me neither, Obli. Royboycrashfan 05:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Please, we are building an encyclopedia not a slang dictionary. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Appears to be a real slang term per references; I've added one. ←Hob 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Move to Wiktionary Unless some in-depth historical analysis is forthcoming, this is a dicdef article. --AlexWCovington (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not encyclopaedic. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:31, 3 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. Was a slightly expanded version of the article deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memes and Design but said nothing new. -- RHaworth 00:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 'idea-of'the latest thought on the mechanics of memetics and design practice

Gobbledegook original research. -- RHaworth 00:12, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 00:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proto Man: Powered Up

Prediction of future editions of a video game, delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball --Hansnesse 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as Wikipedia is not notable. —This user has left wikipedia 01:13 2006-02-02
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. C'mon, 2013? It doesn't take seven years to create a game. Royboycrashfan 05:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. ??? and per nom. Akerensky99 05:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete obviously fancruft. Savidan 07:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete: hoax. No Googles, and there'd be news somewhere on the Internet if this was real (I had no idea people still like Mega Man that much, but they do!). Marblespire 08:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"I had no idea people still like Mega Man that much, but they do!" What nonsense is this..? -Zero^Talk 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete- What is this doing in an encycolpedia.? -Zero^Talk 20:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Bad ideas 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, huh? wha?, doesn't appear salvageable. ←Hob 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft. --AlexWCovington (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Reluctant delete, despite inherent awesomeness of name. Proto||type 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - joke. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per crystal ball. --Kinu 08:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unreferenced speculation ikh (talk) 02:18, 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 Delete CSD: A7 --light darkness 02:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nadanai Laohakunakorn

Delete Non-notable person. ManiacK 00:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable vanity biography see http://www.thailandlife.com/abroad/live.html. —This user has left wikipedia 00:35 2006-02-02
Delete as per above. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as nn-bio, I've tagged the page. --light darkness 02:12, 2 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.

[edit] Humanistic naturalism

The result of the debate was Keep. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Neology Ezeu 00:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep A complex google search for "Humanistic naturalism" -wikipedia philosophy gives 256 quality results. Not a lot but seems notable enough in the field of Philosophy. —This user has left wikipedia 00:33 2006-02-02
Keep. Used by notable figures such as John Dewey and William Carlos Williams. Apparently. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Achille. Royboycrashfan 05:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per squiddy. Akerensky99 05:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge as a veriation of Humanism? (Signed: J.Smith) 05:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, do not merge. Important philosophical concept. Savidan 07:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Achille and Squiddy. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep In cases like these google should not be used as an indication for the importance of the subject. Important school of thought. Do not merge --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Achille Nick Catalano (Talk) 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, can probably expand to clarify what sets these writers apart, otherwise merge with naturalism (philosophy). I rewrote the intro slightly to help. ←Hob 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, encyclopedic and plenty of room to expand. --AlexWCovington (talk) 23:38, 2 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 close early with no result because it needs to be handled as a copyright problem instead. --Michael Snow 06:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of VH1's 100 Greatest Songs from the Past 25 Years

Original research and subjective POV. Doesn't cite (if) it came from an official list or not. Last Avenue 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep, like The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll. Song lists from notable sources are inherently NPOV and not original research. Kappa 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The number of music TV/Radio/magazine's top 100/50/10 lists of songs could be vast. I'd like to see some sign that this one isn't just another. Is is authoritative, widely cited, referred to, talked about, or controversial? If not, it's just listcruft. I'll come back and vote one way or the other when I'm sober. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep It's popular among the younger crouds, but I'd worry regarding copyright issues. —This user has left wikipedia 00:31 2006-02-02
~~Keep~~ It can be an article about that list as much as being a list if lists bother people. This is more marginal of an example, I could see this in an Almanac. (I think the horror people have at lists is intense enough that maybe there should just be a Wiki-Almanac where lists can be banished to)--T. Anthony 04:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Abstain I hadn't consider copyvio issues. If it's a copyright violation it probably should be removed. I asked about the Vatican Film List I created once, that isn't copyvio is it?--T. Anthony 04:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable list with no explanation of the list. Hdstubbs 04:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Given VH1's credentials as a music television station. Capitalistroadster 04:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. While Hdstubbs makes a good argument for deleting it, Kappa makes a better one for keeping it. Royboycrashfan 05:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The list doesn't come out that often and VH1 is well recognizable. Calwatch 05:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete because as NN and listcruft. (Signed: J.Smith) 05:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN list. Arbustoo 06:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. VH1 is a very notable music television channel and has put together several of these "Greatest" lists. There is already 100 Greatest Songs of Rock 'N' Roll as well two other VH1 lists in 40 Most Awesomely Bad No. 1 Songs and List of VH1's 40 Most Awesomely Bad Breakup Songs. There is also the Rolling Stone series and the Blender magazine series. Keep as per precedent -- Ianblair23 (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as VH1 is notable. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Unlike Maxim's, VH1's focus is music. (OK, its ostensible focus is music, its real focus is silly reality shows and E!-style celebrity worship and gossip, but we'll ignore that.) StarryEyes 15:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There are hundreds of these lists and, while VH1 is music-centered, it's far from authoritative, and not extremely notable compared to its peers; it's just one more commercial medium with its own POV and self-interest. The Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame's list, by comparison, comes from a NPOV and authoritative non-commercial source and attempts to describe long-term influence that shaped the field. This list is less encyclopedic in both scope and source. Most such lists are listcruft, and I don't think this one rises above the bar. Barno 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. When some random media outlet puts out a list of the top x of y, that doesn't make it encyclopaedic. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, as mentioned above, is a different story. VH1 is not the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Lord Bob 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this is just another of endless numbers of 'Foo magazine's list of 100 best Blah' type lists ::Supergolden:: 17:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Kappa Raggaga 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Barno. ←Hob 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Kappa. There are plenty of articles like this e.g. all ten of the articles listed at AFI 100 Years series. NoIdeaNick 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft, non-authoritative source. Makemi 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable pop-culture reference for 2003. --AlexWCovington (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Destroy as Copyvio. Lists of items derived solely through editorial opinion (as opposed to polls, statistics, and other fact-based processes) fall within the guidelines of Eckes v. Card Prices Update and are subject to copyright protection under US law. Reproducing the entirety of such a list merely for the purposes of copying it into Wikipedia is a copyright violation and should not be allowed to stand. Dragons flight 01:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete for the same reason that those Newsweek lists of colleges were deleted a while back. Per Dragons flight, this basically amounts to stealing their list. —Cleared as filed. 05:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as blatent copyvio ➥the Epopt 05:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - copyvio. Guettarda 07:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete copyvio. There could probably be an article about "lists of the greatest foo of bar" with external links to listings. I mean really, these sorts of lists seem to become a rather iconic character of Western pop culture. older ≠ wiser 14:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think an article about this stuff would be acceptable (though I think a single article about VH1's lists of ... would be far superior. They are in themselves an interesting pop culture phenomenon. Guettarda 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as possible copyvio, and Wikipedia is not a VH1 mirror. Stifle 16:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as copyvio. --Carnildo 20:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio per Eckes v. Card Prices Update. Simply reproducing the list is copyright infringement; however, an article could surely be made about the list and events associated with it. Wikiacc (¶ | ∞) 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World’s 10 Worst Dictators. The fact that some source makes a list of the best or worst or whatever makes it encyclopedic. Here the source is VH1, which knows something about music, and the Dictator's list is by David Wallenchinsky who knows something about making pithy little lists, packaging them and getting published. So what? Should we take a concordance and list God's favorite words? Carlossuarez46 22:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as copyvio. - ddlamb 05:09, 4 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. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naturean

Delete Not existing(?) religion. Couldn't find anything about it on google. ManiacK 00:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, Google search for Naturean solstice OR equinox OR harvest gives only 14 entries —This user has left wikipedia 00:28 2006-02-02
Delete as per above. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This is a significantly poorly written attempt at an article. Royboycrashfan 05:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I can make no argument for keeping it.Akerensky99 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN. Arbustoo 09:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, appears to be editor's own invention (none of the 14 items Achille found on Google are referring to "naturean" as a religion) ←Hob 21:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nothing on Google and sounds fabricated to boot. --AlexWCovington (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:31, 3 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 Super Mushroom. -Splash^talk 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poison Mushroom

Nonsense about Super Mario. Delete. Grandmasterka 00:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. —This user has left wikipedia 01:13 2006-02-02
Delete as per above. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to the nominator's statement, the article is quite accurate, although it fails to mention that poison mushrooms showed up in the Lost Levels, as well. However, it's also completely non-notable. Delete or possibly Redirect to Toadstool. Vanigo 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Super Mushroom, which talks about the subject in question (also note Mushroom (Mario), a dupe). Nifboy 02:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Super Mushroom. Royboycrashfan 05:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Super Mushroom. –Sommers ^(Talk) 05:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per above. Arbustoo 06:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect I guess although it begs the question because a Poison Mushroom is nothing like a Super Mushroom. I'm not even that hardcore of a mario fan and I know that. Savidan 07:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It should belong in the "other mushrooms" section. Fetofs ^Hello! 10:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Super Mushroom. Fetofs ^Hello! 10:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redorect to Super Mushroom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as per everybody. This info is already there in slightly better form. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Mushroom (Mario) - surely that's the more general topic that Super Mushroom should be merged into? ←Hob 21:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Toadstool. It does not make sense to redirect a generic term to an article about an item in a video game. Just because the article is about Super Mario right now doesn't mean that the term poison mushroom ought to redirect to an article about Super Mario. I'm going to be bold and redirect it myself. NoIdeaNick 22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- It seems as if there is no way to do this without removing the AfD notice, which I had not intended to do, so I'll wait until after the debate closes.

NoIdeaNick 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Mushroom poisoning (as poisonous mushroom already does). Nick is absolutely right, having a term like this redirect to videogamecruft is a really bad idea. -R. fiend 23:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Changed my vote to redirect to Mushroom poisoning, merging current content into Mushroom (Mario). But then the lowercase version, poison mushroom, needs a redirect too. ←Hob 06:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Not a valid choice. If we merge anything, the article must redirect to the merge target, to comply with the GFDL. Stifle 23:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Perhaps, I'm wrong, but I don't think that's how it works. My understanding is that the original edit history has to be retained and the target article has to acknowledge that it used material from the source article. There aren't any restrictions on what the source article is redirected to, at least not in terms of complying with the GDFL. That's only my understanding though. If someone else knows that I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. NoIdeaNick 01:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguate with links to Mushroom poisoning and Mushroom (Mario). Stifle 16:40, 3 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. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axegrinder

Delete: Non-notable band that only made one full-length album which falls short of WP:BAND expectation of two full-length on major labels. No mentions on either Amazon or AllMusic. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete only about 800 entries on [2] google —The preceding unsigned comment was added by This user has left wikipedia (talk • contribs) .
Delete as per above. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per everyone. Royboycrashfan 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, on music wikicity [3] not needed and nn for here -- Astrokey44|talk 12:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Stifle 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:31, 3 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. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicompany

Unencyclopedic website promo, does not meet WP:WEB, delete--nixie 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as advertisement. --Ezeu 00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete Although a more complex google search shows 60 000 the site is crappy and they are infringing Wikimedia copyrights by displaying the wikipedia logo. —This user has left wikipedia 01:05 2006-02-02
- Huh, interesting here. Everything here is under the GFDL, but the logo is fully copyrighted! --Perfecto 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete as per above. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete per above. Royboycrashfan 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete ad for nn website. Not enough googlehits, even with your shrewd search. Savidan 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertisment. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, advertisement Bad ideas 20:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - advertising. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to itself, perhaps? :) --Perfecto 00:18, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of groups of four

Useless criterion, giving a random collection of things. I've also nominated groups of 6 (ongoing) and 7 (deleted). Delete this one too. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete wildly unmaintanable. —This user has left wikipedia 00:59 2006-02-02
Delete Ridiculous but sort of fun. This could go on forever. Hdstubbs 04:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per everyone. Royboycrashfan 05:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete since it's just a list of lists. (Signed: J.Smith) 06:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 06:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete ohhh, I wanted to be the fifth vote, not fair! linas 06:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fun but ridiculously pointless... Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 10:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Rename to list of musical quartets (retain the artist and music section) and delete the rest of it. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per all. --Ter enc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12

41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Rename to list of musical quartets I shall not have worked in vain ! - Mrbluesky| 14:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Rename to list of musical quartets per above. ←Hob 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as it is now. A list of musical quartets could conceivably be useful, but as it is now, it's naming bands which happen to have four members, which everyone already knows have four members. Makemi 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as list for list's sake. Having an article on four member bands is also a horrible idea. As it's probably the most common number for rock bands, it would be impossibly long and difficult to maintain. Not to mention useless. -R. fiend 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as utterly indiscriminate collection of information. Usually I'm actually somewhat in favor of lists but not this one. Cyde Weys 05:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete, list created only for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups of six and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups of seven. Stifle 16:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per my vote on the sixes. Carlossuarez46 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. And then create "List of groups of three" and append thereto, as articles involving collections to be deleted, "List of groups of four", "List of groups of six", and "List of groups of seven". Joe 05:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:16, 4 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. -- RHaworth 03:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What A Brand Is

This is an incoherent original research essay about... Brands, I guess. Delete. Grandmasterka 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - I've already deleted this once before it was re-created and then nominated for deletion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above. --Ezeu 00:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per recreation of deleted material --Hansnesse 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Flcelloguy. Rory096 00:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Raggaga 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete I already deleted the contents as it's a copyvio of http://www.schraff.com/adv/helpdesk/brand_is.php. —This user has left wikipedia 00:57 2006-02-02
Speedy delete as per above. --light darkness 02:43, 2 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 A1 --light darkness 02:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of crimes against the apostrophe

Unencyclopedic listcruft - and it only has one entry! -- RHaworth 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as pointless. --Ezeu 00:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as it ha's no potential. Turnstep 01:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Does every article need to be deathly serious? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense --light darkness 02:43, 2 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. Merge-or-not can be worked out on the talk page(s). -Splash^talk 00:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insane Crips

A gang that doesn't have any notability (unless someone proves me wrong?) I didn't think it would fall under any speedy category, so just plain delete. Grandmasterka 01:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep There are several notable rappers who are members (or formerly members of the insane crips: see Crips). We have Snoop Dogg as a member of the Rollin' 20's Crips but this site says he too was in the insane crips. Notable since they appear in the news. At the very least, merge with Crips, but I think better to keep. --Hansnesse 01:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. per nom. as well as "crap." Batman2005 01:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I would say it is more extensive and better written than most new stubs. Here are some recent news reports on the Insane Crips (after less than five minutes of searching):

-"Long Beach seeks order to curb gang" in San Diego Union-Tribune, May 24, 2003.

-"Drug-related fugitive list reduced" in Press-Telegram, Spet. 30, 2005.

The fact that the group is in the news, and that they have ties to demonstrably notable people, and are fairly large and a violent history, to me makes them notable. --Hansnesse 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. They're a notable gang. possible merge with Crips as per HansnesseAkerensky99 05:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Hansnesse. Royboycrashfan 05:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Hansnesse. Arbustoo 06:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge. Most of the current info in the article is original research and getting truely unbiased accurate information on street gangs is next to impossible, so most information can't be verified. ^Blank ^Verse 09:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Hansesse. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Crips. Considering the inevitable verifiability problems with this article, I think merging is the safest course of action. Lord Bob 17:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above Compu te r Jo e 18:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Crips Nick Catalano (Talk) 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Crips per Lord Bob's reasoning.--Isotope23 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Crips ←Hob 21:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. Stifle 16:47, 3 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 - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mansuit

was on CSd, but seems not, neologism? delete-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:07, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quiet Desperation

was on CSD, thought AFD would suit better-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nn band. Rory096 01:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Bands, even if nn, should not be speedied. Royboycrashfan 05:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Then why do we have a db-band tag? ;) Rory096 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete NN. Arbustoo 06:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not notable Bad ideas 20:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:31, 3 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 00:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mikhail Tank

I don't think the actor as he is now is notable enough. Maybe in a few years... abakharev 01:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

weak delete. Has an IMDB page, but roles equate to nothing substantial. He's been in one or two TV shows as far background characters, but so have literally millions of others who don't warrant inclusion. Batman2005 01:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete per above. Royboycrashfan 05:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable guy. He should be really infatuated with himself, judging by his edits. --Ghirla | talk 08:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Extremely strong delete. Guys, if we include every d*mn person who played a few-second role in some movie, Wikipedia will become a nonsense. KNewman 08:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per knewman. Arbustoo 09:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete after reviewing IMDB info. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
delete nn. mikka (t) 18:50, 3 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 00:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Travicola

Non-notable game. No Google hits outside of the article itself. Delete. Turnstep 01:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. In addition, has been marked a possible hoax by SourLays. Royboycrashfan 05:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 06:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Lack of Google hits shows the game isn't popular enough to have an article. Also, has no reliable outside sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Deltete as per nom. Bobby1011 19:11, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zanzibar Radio

Advertising, probably not notable. Delete. Grandmasterka 01:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rory096 01:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Article is POV, poorly written, and possibly vanity. Royboycrashfan 05:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 06:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Hoax/vanity. A google query for ""Zanzibar Radio" + Westfield" came back with 0 results. --light darkness 14:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoax/vanity/advertisement, any number of other things Bad ideas 20:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:30, 3 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 G-man (slang). Mailer Diablo 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G-Men(Slang)

was on CSD, thought AFD would suit better-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as neologism. Rory096 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep . This phrase has not been a neologism since the 1920s. There is enough intrinsic value in this term for it to not be a redirect. Just watch any gangster movie, like The Untouchables. If anything, this article should be tagged with expansion. Given time, this could develop into a decent article that isn't a stub. It should be moved, however, to G-Men or G-men (mob slang).Youngamerican 02:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Well-known term as shown by the 1930's film of the same name. Capitalistroadster 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
~~Redirect~~ to G-Man (or vice versa). Crypticfirefly 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to G-Man. Royboycrashfan 05:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to G-Man. Ikkyu2 05:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

*Redirect to G-men. (aeropagitica) 06:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to G-man (slang) as per Mgm comments. (aeropagitica) 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Rename to G-man (slang). This title needs to follow naming conventions. The redirect target suggested above is a disambiguation page which should refer to other pages, not include large sections of info. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Rename to G-Man (slang) per Mgm. Crypticfirefly 13:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to G-Man. Very common term in the U.S. Raggaga 12:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to G-Man (slang) per Mgm. Royboycrashfan 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Slang. No useful content. JFW | T@lk 17:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, dicdef, already exists on Wiktionary. ←Hob 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to G-Man (Half-Life) cause it's all about the G-man. Or whatever the others wanted redirecting to if we're gonna be all serious. Cyde Weys 05:53, 3 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 (speedy deletion criterion A7). howch e ng {chat} 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brent bradshaw

Plausible-sounding nonsense. Nothing found on Google. Evil saltine 01:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Possible attempted attack page. Ruby 01:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. I'm almost positive I nominated this for speedy delete before, but it's not the history, so it must be a recreated deleted article. Rory096 01:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, speedy if possible, per nom. --Lockley 02:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Article is poorly written and, as previously stated, possible attack page. Royboycrashfan 05:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete since even if it's 100% true, it's still not notable (no relevent ghits on first page) (Signed: J.Smith) 05:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 06:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Bad ideas 20:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above--Bill 23:25, 2 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 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soul.za

Foreign language advertisement for non-notable website.

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete no habla. Ruby 01:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. ~MDD 46 96 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. If kept, please add {{notenglish}}. Royboycrashfan 05:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete does not meet web notability criteria. Savidan 07:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Aha! I can read Portuguese! But this does not seem notable, nor does it really provide a case for itself. Delete. Grandmasterka 07:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete this ad. Arbustoo 09:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 15:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - advertising. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:29, 3 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 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Crosina (2nd nomination)

This page was nominated on January 26th and there was no consensus. However, the "keep" side was driven by a claim that the subject was a professional hockey player - a claim that was never verified. In fact all of my research points to the fact that the subject was not a professional hockey player, as his only mention at hockeydb.com was that he played for the University of British Columbia team (which is a university team, not a professional one). Therefore, I am renominating the article to form a clearer consensus. Delete. Andy Saunders 01:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. google "Frank Crosina" hockey turns up 4 distinct pages none of which seems to indicate playing for a team other than the Univ. of B.C. Dr Debug (Talk) 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Definitely not a pro hockey player. Raggaga 12:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep This shows he played for the Spruce Kings 24.71.228.253 19:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The BCHL is not a professional hockey league. --Andy Saunders 20:58, 3 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. I'm not convinced this is useful as a redirect, so someone else can create it if they like. -Splash^talk 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Coptic Orthox Church

I'm pretty sure this is talking about the Coptic Church, but this is a rant (and "advertising") and the proper info is elsewhere. Delete. Grandmasterka 01:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete preaching bordering on nonsense. Ruby 01:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing to merge, and it is an unlikely misspelling. Youngamerican 01:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, reasons stated above. -Ikkyu2 02:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. At the very least due to W:NPOV Akerensky99 05:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Severely incoherent (to English eyes/ears) -- delete unless cleaned up and verified as not being a misspelling -- Simon Cursitor 08:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per all of the above, I've just checked with a Coptic friend of mine and this definitely is a misspelling. Sounds funny, though - orthox... Muhamedmesic 12:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete this POV screed and redirect to Coptic Church to discourage re-creation. TMS63112 18:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect per TMS63112. Orthox --- gets your sins whiter! Smerdis of Tlön 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Coptic Church. Please tell me this was an intentional mispelling? Cyde Weys 05:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect as per all. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not sure whether redirect has any use. Pavel Vozenilek 22:20, 4 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 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karayana and David Dom

Following discussion at WP:DRV these are being returned for re-examination. ~~Currently no opinion.~~ There appears to be no way to show that these individuals satisfy WP:BIO using Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Further, WP:V is not negotiable, and an organisation's website cannot be used to verify that someone is/is not a member. Delete unless information from independant sources shows notability.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:26, 2 February 2006

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karayana
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Dom
WP:DRV discussions (scroll to bottom)

Delete as unverifiable and not notable. Even the notability of the organisation itself has not been shown, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Order of Druids. (That would have been the only possible merge target, AFAICT). Kusma (討論) 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Since the website isn't notable, its members should go too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all the above. Pilatus 04:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per discussion in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Order_of_Druids. --Bugturd Talk 12:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I note, too, that the only source citation is the website for the New Order of Druids, and I would expect at the very least that an article about an important person would contain verifiable source citations bearing on that person and his contributions, not merely about an organization he belonged to. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non notable people. The logic of the nom is sound - after all this time no verifiable source of notability has been shown. Obina 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - User:Nae'blis's investigation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Order of Druids I think estabslihes the non-notability of that organisation: these people's main claim to notability resides in their position within that group: holding a position within a non-notable group is non-notable. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: following JzG's opinion below: my concern with notability is a concern about verifiability and maintainability. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable from reliable sources. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --Kinu 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Organization was started last September, as near as I can tell, and they are not notable (or even really verifiable) yet. Most internet links come from webrings, link pages, and other self-applied references. I have as yet been unable to talk with them on their forums due to registration difficulties. If the group takes off, I will gladly revisit my opinion on both N.O.D. and the founders. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:43, 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 DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StabilAntenna

Non notable invention (an array of alligator clips!), receives 3 google hits, all in Hungarian and probably unconnected! -- Aim Here 01:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete As per nom. (aeropagitica) 06:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Almost, but not quite, a BJAODN. linas 06:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Reads like a joke. No information currently in the article is verifiable (i.e. provided with sources). Dpbsmith (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Bad ideas 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:28, 3 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 00:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evening's Greetings

Non-notable, somewhat vanity article. I could not find any reputable sources that discuss "Evening's Greetings". ~MDD 46 96 01:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Upon furthur investigation, I found out that the author's real name is "Chris Reyes" (on the Mason-Dixon line article). That name turns up no relevant Google hits. ~MDD 46 96 01:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not notable Bad ideas 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Stifle 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:28, 3 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 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Otterkill Golf & Country Club

Non-notable country club, unless proven otherwise. Delete. Grandmasterka 01:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete It sounds a little too run down to be notable. Ruby 02:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:28, 3 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 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masskontroll

Delete: Non-notable band. Only one full-length album which falls short of WP:BAND guideline of two full-lenghts on major labels. Nothing on Amazon or AllMusic. Can't find an official page or other sources. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ruby 01:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom/above: Also see their entry on Last FM, not too many people have even listened to them. --light darkness 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:28, 3 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. -Splash^talk 00:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antisystem

Keep: per great research! Needs sources documented. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Delete: Non-notable band. Article mentions only one possibly-full-length album which doesn't meet WP:BAND guideline of two full-length albums. No mention on Amazon or AllMusic (AllMusic does have an entry for Anti System - two words - but it may be a different band and doesn't say anything anyway). Can't find any sources actually. The only candidate for an official page was a 404 broken link. A search on one of the album names gave only Wikipedia mirrors. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This entry seems to be unverifiable, but please do remember that there's more things mentioned in WP:NMG that could merit inclusion beside 2 full length albums and Amazon and All Music listings. A band with no albums can still be notable for other reasons. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per thorough nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and move to Anti System. The AMG entry in question is [4]. Under the discography tag, one of the albums is Defence of the System, which is mentioned in the article. However, the only other listing there is No Laughing Matter, which is not mentioned in the article but which does appear to be by the same band, see [5]. They did appear to release two albums, A Look at Life and No Laughing Matter. So they have an AMG entry, they have two albums...really, they do meet WP:MUSIC. You get many more relevant results for Anti System in Google if you use the two-word version of their name. Raggaga 12:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep & move to Anti System per Raggaga. I grant this is on the very cusp of notability, but they do have an All Music entry, even if it is just a discography with no bio. And they have done two albums. Let's remove some of those red links, though. StarryEyes 13:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Well, now I'm thorougly confused. With your new info, I found this link which shows their Defence of the Realm EP with five tracks. The article mentions Defence of the Realm with "2 more tracks" and none of the names match. Are we sure we're dealing with the right band here? And what is this link showing? It looks like they gathered the bits and pieces from their scattered catalog and released it as one CD? Doesn't that still mean they've only made enough music to fit on one CD? You've almost got me convinced to keep except now I'm worried about their verifiability with this new conflicting info. Then again, if we have to jump through this many hoops to find anything, how notable can they be?! —Wknight94 (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- They are not "notable" in the dictionary sense of the word, but they do meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. OK, I think I've got it all sorted out. Here was the original text of the article: "anti system formed in 1981 in 82 there 8 track demo came out they had 2 tracks on Punk Dead - Nah Mate, The Smell is Jus Summink in Yer Underpants Innit 12"(Pax, 1982) then they released defence of the realm ep (pax, 1982) had 2 more tracks on Bollox to the Gonads - Here's the Testicles LP (Pax, 1984) after pax records went under they singed to reconciliation records in 84 85 saw the release of there legendary lp no laughting matter in 86 they released there last best release a look at life(12) anti sytem were not a crust band they were hard core punk." They never said that "Defence of the Realm EP" included songs called "Bollox to the Gonads" and "Here's the Testicles", but that they contributed two songs to the album called Bollox to the Gonads - Here's the Testicles. This link reveals that that album is a compilation. The person who did the clean-up made the understandable mistake, given the original text's sheer incomprehensibility. StarryEyes 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, and good job sorting this all out. -Colin Kimbrell 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Yeah, fantastic! They still seem too obscure to warrant an article but they do indeed seem to have a chance at meeting WP:MUSIC so I changed my vote as well. If an admin wants to close this one, it's fine by me. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to pass WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan 19:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough, understandable that a more obscure band from the 80s would have a short first posting. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:44, 3 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, as this has been massively edited during this AfD [6]. It would need a new debate to examine this version of the article. -Splash^talk 00:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous opiate addicts

no sources, clearly defamatory in some cases, OR ALKIVAR™ 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Delete per nomination. ALKIVAR™ 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment It needs to be greatly pared down and sourced. I'd prefer it be limited to dead people also, as much to be historic and avoid gossippiness as anything. That said I think you should've put a verify tag for a bit before going for this step.--T. Anthony 02:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- No offense here... BUT... this article been around since December 2003 (I moved it to this title in December 04) and has NEVER had any citations or sources for verification. It's gotten to the point that the majority of contributions are anon users using it to smear people. ALKIVAR™ 13:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, verify, and maintain sourcing for new additions. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This seems notable, verifiable, & encyclopedic. I like T. Anthony's suggestion about sourcing it and avoiding simple gossip about Whoopi Goldberg, for instance, but I'm personally not sure where to draw the line. --Lockley 02:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. List of people believed to have epilepsy is how this kind of thing ought to be done, if it has to be done at all. No vote. Ikkyu2 03:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my comment wasn't a vote either. I'd lean toward keep as I think there is a greater historical importance to opium addiction than there is for some others. However I'm not certain this list is necessary or worth it.--T. Anthony 04:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep ~~the article and Delete all people in the article that have no source or ref for inclusion 99% of the list.~~Done. Keep. amd move to NPOV and factually accurate title ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete no need to make a spectacle of other peoples problems. Carl Johnson 05:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment newly created user with this vote as only edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - drugs are destroying the hood. SeanJohnson 05:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment newly created user with this vote as only edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep addicts makin me the fat cat. Big Smoke 05:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment newly created user with this vote as only edit. Weregerbil 07:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep gotta be slangin to my homeboys keepin my pockets lined all the time. Ryder Wilson 05:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment newly created user with this vote as only edit. Weregerbil 07:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And also a character from Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, like all the other redlinks here. I would say they were vote-cramming, but they're voting different ways... — sjorford (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My vote on this matter is on a need-to-know basis only. Mike Toreno 05:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment newly created user with this vote as only edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete thems aint no pimps. Jizzy B 06:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment newly created user with this vote as only edit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete unless each accusation is independently verified. As it stands now it seems to be a revisionist attempt to make opiate use normative. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
Keep per Lockley, or better yet, make this a category. Crypticfirefly 06:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete although the concept is not forever unincludable. However, the overwhelming magnitude of unsourced potential defamations warrants deletion. Could someone look into possible sockpuppets above? Savidan 07:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic and unverifiable. -- Kjkolb 09:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable, hearsay and slander -Doc ^ask? 10:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete dangerous and likely defamous. Xtra 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep the verified entries and cut the rest. I don't see any reason to cut it entirely. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless verified. If kept, should be pared down to the verified cases only. Zunaid 12:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not one source or explanation in the entire article, which would be needed for this sort of topic. (the imdb links are just links to the people's biographies) -- Astrokey44|talk 12:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - looks like the verification has already started. Recommend renaming to List of opiate addicts per WP policy of not putting "famous" in the title of lists. Turnstep 14:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- The problem then becomes User A decides ... well the guy from this tv show played a heroin addict in episode #33A4X of That Show and adds a fictional character to the list. The point is to make this 1) real people 2) people who are notable enough to have their own article on wiki 3) verifiable ... IF its to be kept at all. ALKIVAR™ 14:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - unverifiable, possible defamy involved. And, what's more, it's a list. StarryEyes 17:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
delete per everyone Raggaga 17:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
delete as listcruft ::Supergolden:: 17:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per StarryEyes. You don't want to get yourself into a legal situation here. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. At least certain entries (Burroughs, Belushi, de Quincey) seem easily verified. Move to list of opiate addicts; fame or notabililty should be understood in any list. Smerdis of Tlön 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's much better sourced than the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. Just because there's potential for vandalism is no reason to delete. NoIdeaNick 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- NOW it is when i afd'd this it was 600 odd entries with no sources. ALKIVAR™ 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - AFD nom issues largely resolved --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Renameand Keep; aren't we deleting "famous" from article titles? If sourced, the defamation issue shouldn't censor anyone. If Encarta says someone was an addict and so do I, let me guess who has deeper pockets and who is going get sued. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep now that sources have been cited, and rename to List of opiate addicts. Hall Monitor 23:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. Arbustoo 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Some peoples heros are on here and it's understanable to want to delete it. This artical none the less will pop right back up. so keep it, but maybe some tighter controls (such as deaths and arrests may be worth it for a control perimitar) Hagamaba
Comment if kept it should be List of famous opiate users, I know they're extremely addicitive drugs, but it hard enough to verify if somebody used it, let alone whether they were addicted. --BadSeed 17:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment I can see this being useful material to someone working on a paper on the history of opiate use. I second the rename suggestions (with correct spelling). Newbie question: is there a wikipedia tag for "don't add anything here unless you provide a source it"? Csari 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fuzzy, potential place for conflicts and recentism and thus no encyclopedical value. Pavel Vozenilek 22:18, 4 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. I trust I don't need to explicate upon my close here. -Splash^talk 00:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awag

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Delete. — Article fails WP:WWIN in that the subject matter is not important. In other words the subject matter in unencyclopedic. It has no notoriety or other reason to be included in an encyclopedia. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]

Delete per nom. (Signed: J.Smith) 06:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that to several hundred people, if not thousands (let's include the lurkers), that the subject matter is important. That the signee has not heard of the subject should not be used as reason alone for deletion. I am sure if i searched through the wiki files I would find plenty of entries that I considered to be unimportant. As I stated last night when asking for the page to not be deleted, similar entries for other websites are included. As for having no notoriety, again that is a subjective viewpoint of the signee and surely cases should be reviewed on an objective not subjective issue. The entry will make more sense when it is completed, but I say again, to thousands of people the entry will be relevant. Sitheroo 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note: User:Sitheroo's only contributions are to the article (as author) and to this AfD debate. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Savidan 07:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Put it in a dictionary if you can convince someone it is a real word. Weregerbil 09:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Move to Wiktionary Definition of the word is dictionary material, "history" section is nonsense. Weregerbil 10:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The word has been used several times in the British media, 2 examples are
- http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1534268,00.html - 42nd over
- http://sport.guardian.co.uk/englandinpakistan/story/0,16791,1671899,00.html - 36/38/42nd over
It has also appeared in three books 'Is it cowardly to pray for rain', 'She Stood There Laughing' & 'The Book of football lists'. Has been mentioned on BBC Radio 1. Hold on, I'll be back with more in a bit. Sitheroo 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable in parts of Britain and in certain media. Deadlock 10:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Relevant to many followers of lower league Professional football. Dantl 10:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note: User:Dantl's only contributions are to this AfD debate. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
keep. those who would deny wikipeeja of an entry for awag should look at themselves in the mirror and comb their hair. it has brought entertainment to people from all four corners of the world; england, sweden, the caribbean and stoke-on-trent. folk should not dismiss something they do not understand, i mean, 3-2-1 used to be a popular saturday night telly. awag must be represented wa la bingo bango. Denby 10:44am, 2 feb 2006
- Note: User:Denby's only contributions are to this AfD debate. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Oi weregerbil. It's a social commentary on an internet phenomena and hence clearly not nonsense. It needs tidying up and making more readable but is still valid on the encyclodepic side of the site. Sitheroo 10:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Savidan, your entry interests me. What relevance in the wider scheme of things do the rules to a drinking game known by an few people at an educational establishment have? Sitheroo 11:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
keep. The history is as relevant as the definition. To disregard and ignore recorded and factual events is a threat to democracy and smacks of communism.jerichoharris
- Note: User:jerichoharris's only contributions are to this AfD debate. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
keep. I second Sith's emotion (except I have no interest whatsoever in anything to do with Savidan and the word "entry"). It is certainly more relevant than some esoteric mating ritual practised by a bunch of idiots in green jumpers with letters on them who attend some American establishment no doubt famous for its practise of unbridled Man-Love and named after a rather shabby British Dockyard. In short, keep it, or I'll ram you up your own fudge-tunnels. Bernoulli
- Note: user:Bernoulli has zero contribs, this edit was made by unsigned user:192.16.134.66. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
OUTRAGE. Nazism too. Keep the knarly thing IN! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.5.114 (talk • contribs).
Delete as nonsense. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Some of the material that appears on awag may be contentious, but it is subvesive and invetive: it is this very FACTAMUNDO (overlooked by the main page author incidentally) that is the ESSENCE of AWAG: it forms a continuum of a deeply embedded strand of British SATIRE c/f 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' and 'The Office.'
- Note: User:Johnnyneptune's only contributions are to this AfD debate. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- We all have to join at some point though Zunaid. I think your comment is a little harsh, I fully intend to contribute in other ways to the life of wikipedia from here on in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnnyneptune (talk • contribs).
Reply: That note is merely to inform the closing admin. New users' opinions are not given the same weight as users who have long contribution histories. Zunaid 14:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I've cleared the unhelpful entries off. My intellect alone will be enough to convince you that Awag should be allowed to stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the Wikipedia community. I am, however, busy at work, so if you could hold on til tomorrow night when I've got some time to argue it's case properly I'd be wholly grateful. Hugs and stuff Sitheroo 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- NOTE: please do no delete other people's entries no matter how unhelpful they may be. You also removed my delete vote in doing so. This kind of thing is frowned upon. I've restored all the comments to their prior state. Zunaid 14:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Having been familiar with the word awag for several years I am surprised that this is a relatively new entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.10.221 (talk • contribs).
keep i am not a puppet of the sock or meat variety. this is the first time ever that i've had an opinion on anything and i want to express it. no i had another opinion once, i don't like beards. Denby 13:53, 2 february 2006 (utc)
I got the term onto radio 1, of course it's important. there are probably millions upon millions of people out there wondering what on earth I meant, and now they come to Wikipedia and find out. Wa la bingo bango- brilliant. MHG
- Note: User:MHG has zero edits. this edit was made by unsigned user:82.7.20.231 Zunaid 14:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
keep awag is a well-known old English word. Did not Alfred The Great once say "look out lads, it's the vikings - and they're going awag in a very bad way"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.37.187.197 (talk • contribs).
keep Just in case anybody is paranoid enought to think that I might be Andy in disguise I'm not. Plus I'm married to an American an everything. Doesn't this give me some kind of extra influence? I've applied for my green card and everything. Jerichoharris 14:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Right, I'm back with a proper user name which will hopefully take the edge off the more anal contributor's attitudes. I have an encyclopaedic knowledge of many subjects I will be more than happy to contribute to one I discover the nature of the beast we're humping here. I reiterate that if "Dartmouth Pong" or some water park which caters to people who weigh as much as a small family car are regarded as suitable for inclusion then it would be scandalous not to extend the same courtesy to Awag. ElBerno
- Note: User:ElBerno has zero edits. this edit was made by unsigned user:192.16.134.66 Zunaid 15:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
keep A definition for nonsense as given on wikipedia. "Much madness is divinest sense to the discerning eye. Given that Zunaid is ingorant of the term AWAG, it's usage and importance in Modern Britain, it is little wonder he has described it as such and says much about his own powers of discernment. Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky is afforded room here and AWAG makes a lot more sense that it does.Jerichoharris 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I haven't read the article but anything supported by so many sock puppets has to be deleted. JIP | Talk 15:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at all the people you've nominated for admin positions I don't see how you can be casting sock puppetry aspersions at anybody.Jerichoharris 15:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Subject matter is referenced in several different media. As linked above - Three books? I suspect there's more. Relative obscurity does not automatically equal unencyclopedic - It certainly seems more worthy than some. Dartmouth pong? behave yourselves. I'm not a bleeding sock puppet, just quite affronted by some of the self-important bilge spewed by lorry-sized patronising yanks. Pear 15:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep People who recommend articles they haven't read for deletion really should just fuck right off. Expecially if they are in their 20s and still play with Transformers, you daft perkele tosspot ElBerno
Delete. Re: Dartmouth pong. There is a difference between a game that's been popular for decades among a notable community (Dartmouth is generally considered one of the ten most prestigious universities in America, not that that matters) and a typographical error/inside joke that is relevant to a handful of soccer fans. StarryEyes 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Whether a community is 'notable' is entirely subjective. Awag as a concept has been atround for several years, and is well referenced - 'handful' is your just perception - it is utterly incorrect. And it's football, thanks. Pear 16:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

- Whether a community is notable or not is subjective, but degrees of notability are very concrete. I'd take a world-renowned university over a few soccer fans any day of the week, thanks. StarryEyes 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

- - Ah, perhaps you'd be kind enough to direct me to your notability-o-meter? Again, there are considerably more than a few football fans out there to whom "Awag" means something. It means more to me than a university named after a stinking dock ever will. But I suspect I'll never reach the necessary levels of self-obsessed patronising bleating required to become 'established' enough on here to count for anything. Woe is me Pear 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  - You might want to try Google. "Dartmouth College" (including the quotes, thus excluding many relevant results, considering it is universally known as simply "Dartmouth" by all Americans) has 11,400,000 results. awag football (excluding quotes, thus including many irrelevant results) has a whopping 567. Anyway, don't make it out like I'm a Dartmouth-phile or anything. They rejected me, in fact. StarryEyes 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (Just had a look on GOOGLE, starryeyes is telling porkies. AWAG gets over 11,000 references. "Dartmouth Pong" got 208. Liar liar pants on fire................The comparison was between Dartmouth Pong and AWAG not Dartmouth and AWAG football. Cuntwipe.

For a start, it's not soccer. Secondly, I believe that the point has been made above as to why the "awag" entry should be kept. Reasons have been given such as it's appearance in books, newspapers and national radio. However this appears to be a dictatorship, and we are not being listened too because "zunaid" has too much time on his/her hands. The reason so many "sock puppets" have come on here, as you seem so keen to keep pointing out, is because of the popularity of the entry of awag, and our utter disbelief that you cannot see it's value. MHG

i occasionally wear shoes on my hands, does that make me a shoepuppet? Denby 16:16, 2 february 2006 (utc)

What MHG said, again I am not a sockpuppet but another person who has taken the time and effort to create an account in order that this unbelievably inane discussion comes to an end. To dismiss something so readily just beacuase you are unaware of it is staggering. AWAG is important to many many people and rightly deserves its place in history CaRtEr

Starryeyes, I find it fascinating that somebody who regards British music as so important can be so ignorant of the culture from which it grew. If you told Joe Strummer it was "soccer", and that Dartmouth College graduates were of greater worth than "soccer fans" he quite rightly call you a wanker.Jerichoharris 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- This whole debate is rather silly! I do hold a reverence for British music, like many Americans do, but my respect for British culture does not extend to typographical errors, nor should it! StarryEyes 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Let's say for comparison there was a very popular drinking game at Oxford with traceable lineage and so forth. Let's also say that there was an inside joke among a handful of American baseball fans stemming ultimately from a typographical error. Which would you say is more worthy of inclusion?)

FOOL. They both need inclusion. You are just sounding like a snob now. Oh, and by the way, this was un unsigned entry by a non-voting intruder blah blah blah. I never realised how pompous this wikipedia thing was. You might as well forget it and read a paper encyclopedia if you are not going to be inclusive.

The argument is "silly" because of your ignorance. You are ignorant of what AWAG is, or means, and of it's place in British culture. Given this level of ignorance how can you possibly be in a postition to judge whether or not it should be given a place in what professes to be a informative on-line encyclopedia.Jerichoharris 17:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. OH GOD THE MEATPUPPETS THEY BURN. Doesn't seem to be notable, is definitely badly written, verifiability seems wanting (although I came across a website which uses the term...well, let's just say it doesn't verify a damned thing). So, yeah, delete. Lord Bob 17:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

AWAG is not just a community, it's a way of life, a way of escaping boredom at work and at home with like minded people, It is also a perfect vehicle to co-ordinate social occasions across the country....sorry YOOKAY!, the football element contributes only a small percentage to that which is AWAG. Maybe you narrow minded fuckwits can't get your head around people who can actually manage their own lives and make their own decisions and generate their own community without having their heads up their own self important arses. But then again we do have history culture and breeding.

And YES! This is my 1st contribution..........Michelotti

Delete. I read this three times, and I still can't understand what it's talking about. -Colin Kimbrell 17:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I read Einstein's general theory of relativity three times, and couldn't understand what that was about. The difference was that I wasn't arrogant enough to decide that made it valueless....

Comment:Please see WP:PN.-Colin Kimbrell 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as slang def and for ridiculous sock/meat-puppetry. And to the poor admin who has to wade through all this upon closing, you have my condolences. bikeable (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

According to your own daft encyclopaedia, "The Meat Puppets" are a punk band. Why do you keep referring to people as though they were members of this band? Also how can the band be worthy of inclusion but its apparent members (of which there seem to be many) are not? dan 18:20, 2 February 2006 (COYRs) -- this comment by User:217.37.187.197 bikeable (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

...almost funny. I am very familiar with the Meat Puppets, thank you. Please read WP:SOCK, and realize that the comments of people who are new to wikipedia and arrive just to "vote" on this AfD are not likely to count for much. bikeable (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I read it. The last paragraph reads "Do not call these users "meatpuppets"; be civil." but I've not seen much civility from the delete brigade. All I see is name-calling, abuse and ridiculous censorship. Real friendly.dan 21:14, 2 February 2006 (COYRs) -- this comment by User:84.9.208.158. bikeable (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"This user is a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article" - I'd say arbitrarily declaring Delete as you have rather shows your hypocritical bent there old son.

Strong delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Stong Delete as a slang dictionary definition with a history of negligible notability and questionable verifiability. Mix in enough meat puppets to get a rousing chorus of "Lake of Fire" going and I'd say this article needs to go.--Isotope23 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete! What is going on here? All this over another spelling of "away"? Very non-notable!! Grandmasterka 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Soccer's a British word too you know, you silly gits. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic. Edgar181 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Almost the only coherent part of the article stated it was a "Nonsense word". We have an incoherent article about a nonsense word.

Capitalistroadster 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep and DeleteI can't believe that a bunch of webspazzes are debating wether a reference to another bunch of webspazzes should be included in an encyclopedia that will only be read by other webspazzes - put the Kleenex away, open the curtains, squeeze some zits and go outside. Webspaz
Comment I find the use of the word spaz highly objectionable.

If some cunt's (and a cunt in his TWENTIES at that) entry about "Transformer Fest 2004" makes the cut I REALLY don't see what you're moaning about. I'll bet good old English pounds to your vicously devalued American dollar that twenty years down the line (assuming the inevitableresource/race-wars haven't destroyed the internet/western society by then) that there will be more Awaggers than "Botcon" attendees, if only because a significant proportion of our lot have had sex with something other than our own hands and are likely to actually have some progeny. "Botcon" is a ridiculoous word, for fuck's sake - it sounds like a festival of anal adventure. AWAG is at least as "real" at least as "meaningful" and a milion times more significant than some bleach-faced Finnish Nazi sympathisers getting together with like-minded potential serial killers to spray their salty jizz over who has Galvatron in the most original original packaging. Get a grip you suppurating CUNTSTACKS!. Bernie XX

- Doesn't change my vote, but damn that is one of the funniest things I've read today.--Isotope23 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To anyone looking for references, please feel free to use the enclosed google link from October 2001. http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.sport.soccer/browse_thread/thread/ffe80a53152319f6/cfab3b3338892f9c?lnk=st&q=valiantitus&rnum=1#cfab3b3338892f9c

Delete, and if ever there was an argument for semi-protecting AFD pages, this is it. Hell, I would have speedied this crap. -R. fiend 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

KEEP: I only hope it is a valuable contribution to transatlantic peace if it is mentioned that in a forthcoming book on 'Football' which will be published by UK publishers Canongate in May 2006 [7] both awag and wikipedia appear in the acknowledgements page.

Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. We can't include a citation in a work that hasn't been published yet. -Colin Kimbrell 18:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as: vanity, neologism, patent nonsense, and just plain bollocks. Take it to Uncyclopedia, please, but I'm not sure if they'll even put up with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete awag and Transformer Fest 2004, too. Deli nk 23:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator, for the myriad of reasons listed above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - term is on Wiktionary, this article is nonsense. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nonsense. —Cleared as filed. 05:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as near patent nonsense. And please discount all of the "keep" votes. None of them are actually real. Cyde Weys 05:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I was going to write a right good polemic on why this should stay on the webiste but having come in this morning and read the sanctimonious whiny shit above I've changed my mind. Good grief. Rightio That you self-important arbiters of what should be on this website appoint yourselves on time served on website rather than experience or qualifications shows what an arrogant up your own arse bunch of cunts you americans are. This is cultural imperialism of the highest order. Relevance? I could care less that a bunch of webtards who live in their mother's basements fantasizing about shooting their school friends with their dads AK47 collection do not find an ENGLISH website (a very popular one, 1000000 hits a month at the height of it's popularity) relevant. I assume, rightly I imagine, that you have all written off to the Encyclopedia Brittanica and asked for all the bits you don't care about to be removed? Here's the news: AWAG, to many many Britons is as relevant and important as things you care about but we have never heard of are to you. Boo hoo you haven't heard of it. It's a comedic website, it doesn't profess to be anything more and as such it deserves to be kept on this encyclopedia (from the greek meaning 'encyclo' - everything' and 'pedia - fiddler of small children' - and quite right too, that is pretty much what you all are). SO hey ho, you small band of keepers of the truth don't want us to play. Never mind. We'll have as much fun searching the site and finding non-relevant and non-important entries as we would having the pleasure of seeing this entry accepted into the fold.

America uber alles eh? God bless George Bush and his beacon of truth democracy and justice.

Oh and as for it being badly written., THAT WAS THE POINT. IT'S COMEDY YOU CLUELESS BUNCH OF WEBSPAZ ANGLEPOISE CUNTLAMPS Sitheroo

bit harsh on mr bush there sith, it's hardly his fault that this place is populated by puffed-up self-important pasty-faced webtard inveterate mini-napoleons overcompensating for their lack of influence in the real world.

Anyway, back to the important stuff, I thought encyclopedia was those special bike pedals with the straps on. ElBooca 09:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

STOP TELLING ME I CAN'T EDIT MY OWN FUCKING POSTS FOR FUCKS SAKE. Sitheroo

Keep. The justification for the Transformerfest being kept is lots of hits. AWAG had 110,000 hits in one day. That should of* justified it I'd guess. Just remember, sitting at your computer for 15 hours in a day playing God over subjects you don't know anything about doesn't make you Bill Gates.

Indeed, it barely makes you Eric Gates ElBooca 10:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep As an American working in Europe I am frankly dismayed by the attitude of both sides to this discussion, sadly especially my compatriots. Having moved to Munich in 1997 to work for my existing company I have had to put up with anti-american attitudes in all walks of life. Living in Germany this has become particularily hard in the last few years following the intervention in the Middle East situation. In my capacity as a member of AWAG [[8]] I constantly strive to improve relationships with our European Counterparts. Living in Europe has taught me to welcome the diversity of nations, to compare a German to a Frenchman is like comparing an Alaskan with a Mexican Immigrant, one simply can't.

I have a duty to promote AWAG in Europe both through social convertion and the internet, and have come across the alternative British meaning of the acronym on many occasions. While often typically British in attitude, one cannot doubt the growth in use of both the term and the relevance in their part of the world.

As mentioned before, I am saddened to see such dispute over this subject, Wikipedia is growing in reputation in all parts of Europe but particularily the United Kingdom I read, such actions sadly hinder this

Sincerely Yours

Ruth Weinberg

Delete egads... --W.marsh 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep the quantity of votes and comments here seems to have negated the non-notability alleged in the nomination. Carlossuarez46 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to criticize, really, but this is the first time I've ever seen "keep because of sockpuppets" used. Lord Bob 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  - No criticism taken nor intended, but is there any proof that these are sockpuppets? I will assume good faith until proven otherwise (which you may well do). Carlossuarez46 03:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    - Sockpuppets was the wrong term on my part. I should have used meatpuppets, and the evidence is that a large number of anonymous users or newly registered users with no edit histories to speak of are speaking up in favour of this article. This is not usual practice for a deletion and indicates that somebody is trying to round up support. Lord Bob 04:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      - Fair enough. The nom. for deletion was based on non-notability (phrased as non-notoriety). Meatpuppet & Sockpuppet votes will be discounted or disregarded, however it does seem to show that there is some minimal notability (notoriety?) on the subject. We have a fairly low threshold for notability (nearly every murderer or executed murder at least is considered notable enough, as are semi-deities in any number of sci-fi genres, and on and on). Years from now (encyclopedically speaking) these non-notables will not be remembered, but that doesn't preclude their appearance here. If we want to up the threshhold of notability (like we have done with music), I'd be all for it IFF we apply it consistently. In any event, at least I spurred some discussion. You'll note that generally my votes on AfD's are not anti-majoritarian although sometimes I state that I didn't necessarily agree with the rationale. If I end up as a minority of one, I think I can take it. :-) Carlossuarez46 21:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - While there maybe some actually genuine and useful content buried somewhere in the article, the shear amount of irrelevancy, filler and intentional piss-taking, leads me to conclude the loss of any potentially genuine content is preferable to the reputation damage done by having such an atrocious article sitting in WikiP, and the loss of time necessary to bring it up to a minimum standard. I'm all for people posting 'full' articles when they can, instead of just stubs, but for f**ks sake! Send it to Uncyclopedia! --Myfanwy 02:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, it's been massively pared down, all the bits no-one understnads taken out and just the facts. oh baby. is it ok now? :) Sitheroo 02:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Better, but probably still not good enough for me to change my vote. There's no independent verification of the website's traffic claim, which seems to be the main claim to notability, and in one of the two newspaper references cited earlier, the main body of the reference is the sportswriter admitting that he's never heard the term and doesn't know what it means [9]. We need more verifiable, independent information about awag/awagging to demonstrate widespread usage. -Colin Kimbrell 14:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? Do people keeep insisting that many of the contributions on here are by 'sockpuppets'? What is to say that the people that say 'Delete' are not merely sockpuppets of the nominator?

Most of the people saying 'Delete' in this article have a well-established presence and edit history on this encyclopedia. (You can use this tool to check edit counts automatically, if you'd like.) It isn't practical to believe that the nominator would meticulously construct a 500+ post edit history for all of these people simply to abuse AFD process. Meanwhile, a lot of the people saying 'Keep' have only a dozen or so edits, almost all of which are to Awag or to this AFD discussion. It doesn't mean that they definitely are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but it's certainly suspicious. -Colin Kimbrell 14:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

They're real people. I could always publish their mobile numbers on here...

Delete. I have no words. The current version is even worse than when it was nominated. Pavel Vozenilek 22:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"I have no words". What are you thick or something?

I'd guess the 400 inhabitants of Libišany would have words about Pavel's entry about them.

Comment on this delete discussion I am still new to Wikipedia, however I have noticed a few things in this discussion and while looking around the place. Some of the administrators comments on this are rather poorly worded however there have been well voiced comments such as those of Colin Kimbell.

To be honest I get the feeling that most of the comments by the more experienced users are said without even reading the article, they call this jumping on the bandwaggon. There may be many reasons for this but I think that at least some of this is point chasing, from what I read some of the more childish users believe that the more edits one makes, the more important one is. They even have a list of most edits [[10]]

As a new user it is not my place to say that this is stupid but I have to say it comes across this way.

Regards

Ruth Weinberg

I must say that this episode has been an eye-opener for me.

I have, of course, heard of the concept of Wikipedia before, but this is the first time I have ever bothered to look in to it - that was as a result of being part of the Awag community.

My first thought about Wikipedia was that it was a foolish premise which was doomed to failure. Why would the entries in it be regarded as reliable, if they were penned by people with no authority, and freely open to vandalism by anyone (anonymously at that)?

The project does have virtues, of course, and the key one, apart from not having to pay people to insert and edit articles, would have to be inclusivity and scope. Here was the possibility to have an encyclopedia so comprehensive that no other could possibly compete. Even the most obscure facts could be embraced at no cost, apart from a few kilobytes of disk space.

However, this virtue seems to be being thrown away remarkably cheaply.

There are many valid reasons that could be put forward for removing Andy's Awag entry. It is not written in a journalistic style, and the origins and history of both the word and the community are not made clear enough. However, these things could be tidied up. It is true that to verify that Awag exists, and the facts about it are true is not easy, because of the sparsity of other web sites referencing Awag. In this case, we could have relied on the hundreds of other members of the Awag community to edit and correct the entry (apparently the whole idea of Wiki).

However, suggesting that entries should be excluded because they are "not famous enough" is not only an unwise criterion, it is also clearly being applied in an idiosyncratic and irrational way by an cliquey oligarchy of narcisstic bullies, seemingly drunk in their own solipsistic view of the World.

As an example, I noticed that a recently-deleted randomly-chosen article (which I have not had the opportunity to read) was called "Mesh computers". One reason put forward for the deletion was "I've lived in Britain for ten years now and never saw one single box manufactured by those people anywhere". I don't know what that signifies, but we have two in the family and at least two of my work colleagues also have one - so they do exist! Another comment: "links from the vanilla Google search are mostly just product reviews and thus do not indicate notability". There are, in fact, "about 64,000" matches for "Mesh Computers" in vanilla Google. How many do you need to be included?

The next deleted article after that was "Engineering Week - University of Alberta". Maybe not the most important subject in the World, it appears nevertheless to be earnestly and carefully written by someone who though it was worthy of inclusion, and there may be dozens, hundreds or even thousands of people who might have read it with interest. The author may have become a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, but I doubt he/she will ever bother with it again after the vitriolic and utterly inapproriate bile seen in the deletion page, e.g. "vanity", "Does anybody outside the Uni of Alberta give a shit", "boring", "dime-a-dozen University event", etc. These comments are spiteful, unnecessary and are simply a case of shooting onesself in the foot, by alienating people.

I note that one of the aims of Wikipedia,as stated by its founder, is to achieve the same quality as the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or better(!). Frankly, this aim is so laughable as to be embarrassing. Tragically, Wikipedia is also failing miserably to play to its strengths of immediacy and inclusivity.

Personally, I doubt I will be bothering to access Wikipedia again, either as a contibutor or as a reader. If I want reliability, I can use Britannica. Wikipedia doesn't offer anything of value to me. In fact, to be honest, Awag is more valuable.

joncBEE.

Ruth, please allow me to say that you are a shining beacon of sense in what other wise amounts to a dogshit-filled dark corner of a park of mental mayhem. I feel I should apologise for the US-phobic comments of some people here who appear to be doing their best to exhibit what they perceive to be the major drawbacks of the US i.e. a parochial, judgemental, cartoon picture of other lands. As I watch hour after our of news footage of people screaming "Allah Kebab Fallaffel!" and burning down the wrong embassies I feel it is my duty to extend an understanding hand of internationalist pragmatism to try to bring disparate, mutually suspicious groups of people together and elimante the suspicion and rancour over tiny issues which divides us. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to expelling a different, semi-liquid issue I have into an old sock, whilst concentrating on a digitised picture of (a pre-cancerous) Kylie Minogue.

As for the self-righteous Wiki-Napoleons, to quote Mr Reggie Noble; fuck all y'all. I expect Ruth has decomposing lint jammed under her big toe with infinitely more clue of what this Wiki-business is all about than you tossers. Read, mark and learn John BCEE'äs entry with as much attention as you would pay a UNIX manual or a 24 hour Transformer marathon. ONly then can you save yourselves FROM yourselves.

ElBerno XX

Many of the people on here who consider a lack of notability as a valid reason for deletion do so because they feel that it is a logical extension of Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Some others feel that it's not possible to document a truly obscure thing without violating WP:VAIN/WP:NPOV, since the contributor wouldn't have heard about the obscure topic without direct personal involvement. It's still a matter of much debate, though. -Colin Kimbrell 04:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Two other things:

Please don't provide personal information for any user (other than yourself, if you're so inclined), be it names or phone numbers or addresses. It's generally considered very bad form to do so, as people should have a reasonable expectation of privacy when contributing here, if that is what they desire. -Colin Kimbrell 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The various "lists of wikipedians by edits" do also serve some useful purposes, such as helping to identify users who might benefit from additional responsibilities (as in WP:RFA nominations). -Colin Kimbrell 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just making a point Colin - it seems the 'regular' users feel the people involved here are not real.

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. Minds do not appear to have been changed despite the (very partial) translation. -Splash^talk 00:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yusradi Usman Al Gayoni

Delete. This page is not in English and is not verifiable, whatever it was meant to document. Lockley 02:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep & Translate — Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy article should be tagged with {{notenglish}} and listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]

Delete Theres enough English in it to make me feel that even a translated version is very unlikely to be retained. But any editor can tag it as notenglish if they feel that's worthwhile. Dlyons493 Talk 08:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Dlyons493. -- Kjkolb 09:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The text is in Malay and as far as Google was able to help, it's a club for friends who collect books - even in English (sic) and it's got nothing to look for in Wikipedia. -- Muhamedmesic 13:00, 2 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. BD2412 T 02:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moshe Sinai

Delete as non-notable or nonsense. It's a personal message. This page had been blanked. This is the entire text of the only other version: "For Moshe Sinai Hi I am Brenda from Chile. I would like to get your mail adress for to cominicating with you. Bye Brenda." Lockley 02:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete Qualifies as a speedy delete. -- JLaTondre 02:44, 2 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 deletion for nn-band. enochlau (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marionette body

Appears to be vanity and fail WP:MUSIC. Delete Sar e kOfVulcan 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete — Per nom, fails WP:MUSIC — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]
Speedy delete, A7. No assertion of notability is made, in my view. Tagged. PJM 04:04, 2 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 A8. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 03:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jump Mobile

Non noteable, very little context, all it is is external link and a template Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is my second company profile. I was trying to complete the links found under Leap Wireless. Please tell me what you would like me to add. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The2ndflood (talk • contribs) .

Delete copyvio lifted right from http://www.jumpmobile.com/about/ Ruby 03:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What is copvio? There is no news on Jump Mobile yet. They are new to the market. So I just listed what they do on their web site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The2ndflood (talk • contribs) .

You cut and pasted from their website, and that's a no-no. Ruby 03:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am trying to change it. I will add and change what ever needs to be done, but please don't go crazy deleting it before I have a chance to change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The2ndflood (talk • contribs) .

what else do you want me to change? Give me some guidelines? I am new to this and I just wanted to help, because the links for Leap was dead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The2ndflood (talk • contribs) .

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 close early with no result because it needs to be handled as a copyright problem instead. --Michael Snow 06:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maxim magazine's 20 Most Annoying Songs Ever!

Clearly non-notable, highly subjective, has potential copyright problems, has no substantial content beyond the list, and is extremely time-sensitive. I have no problem with citing the honour in the articles for the individual songs (where such articles exist), but the list certainly does not deserve its own article. Deco 03:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete for being a non-encyclopedic totally POV article (besides I like Hollaback Girl). Ruby 03:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, strictly speaking I wouldn't characterize it as POV, since it's just describing what Maxim believes and attributing that opinion to Maxim. But it is quite subjective. Deco 03:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pointless list, non-notable. It isn't POV because it just a repeat of something Maxim said but Wikipedia is not an endless repository for all magazine articles. Hdstubbs 04:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Does Maxim have any special credentials to judge annoying songs? It would arguably be different if it was a music magazine. Capitalistroadster 04:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge I'm changing my vote to merge. Look above this one a few spaces and you'll see a similar vote for VH1's 100 best songs, i'd say if that list stays the maxim one should as well. Just because its not a music magazine doesn't mean there aren't people qualified to judge music who are employed. I'd say put this on the maxim page, as a link to the actual article. Might even be used as trivia on the pages of the individual artists sites. Batman2005 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Totally idiosyncratic non-topic. Ikkyu2 05:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Maxim is not a music magazine. Probable copyright issues. Wikipedia is not a repository for lists from magazine articles. --kingboyk 06:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unencylopædic article, violates WP:NPOV due to subjectivity. (aeropagitica) 06:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete but maybe use as a source for List of songs in English labeled the worst ever -- Astrokey44|talk 12:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Legitimate but unencyclopedic topic. Listcruft, source is insufficiently authoritative in the field. I'd also nominate Maxim for any list of Most Annoying and Least Informative Magazines. Barno 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete I agree that those songs are annoying especially the number 1 but I do believe it is POV and does not belong on an online encylopedia. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge to List of songs in English labeled the worst ever. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically they didn't label the songs as "worst ever", just "most annoying ever". Deco 00:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Destroy as Copyvio. Lists of items derived solely through editorial opinion (as opposed to polls, statistics, and other fact-based processes) fall within the guidelines of Eckes v. Card Prices Update and are subject to copyright protection under US law. Reproducing the entirety of such a list merely for the purposes of copying it into Wikipedia is a copyright violation and should not be allowed to stand. Dragons flight 01:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, barring that Merge to the worst songs list. Notable pop-culture reference for 2005. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Gamaliel 04:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - we shouldn't be duplicating other publications' lists, even if they were halfway authoritative, which this one isn't. —Cleared as filed. 05:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as blatent copyvio ➥the Epopt 05:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - copyvio. Guettarda 07:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, copyvio. older ≠ wiser 14:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as blatent copyvio. --Carnildo 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio per Eckes v. Card Prices Update. Wikiacc (¶ | ∞) 22:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as should Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of VH1's 100 Greatest Songs from the Past 25 Years and List of songs in English labeled the worst ever. These are hopeless subjective, POV, and nonencyclopedic regardless of who the source is and even if not copyvio. Carlossuarez46 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as copyvio. - ddlamb 05:13, 4 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 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bryce Beverlin II

Contested speedy deletion (nn-bio for independent film maker/musician). Author tagged {{hangon}} for over 24 hours. Possible claim to notability is subject founded an independent music label/company. Hurricane111 03:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete pure vanity, google brings very few mentions. author is no doubt the subject. Batman2005 04:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete The music label thing prevented a speedy, but since he has created an article on that too (Insides Music) any notability which genuinely arises from that label can be covered there. The author has a few other questionable new articles to his name also, which maybe should be added? --kingboyk 06:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Notability of subject seems highly moot - as it stands, this looks very much like a vanity bio. Delete Guy Hatton 17:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, although I would reconsider if any of the musical/film works were verifiably important. As it stands, it is strictly vanity. bikeable (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I have nominated an experimental film by this author: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deathproj. bikeable (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there is also Insides Music by the same author, which appears to be another vanity article. Edgar181 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable, self-written vanity. Edgar181 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who tagged it nn-bio; it's still vanity. Delete. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've also started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insides Music. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment This would have been a perfectly reasonable start to an article if it had been submitted by a third party. --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose delete (strong keep) As per comments above, if a third party had contributed this article there wouldn't be a problem. i think wikipedia's very value is in documenting the non-mainstream. If we wanted stuff on U2 or Queen or something we'd go to Allmusic or something. Personally I think its valuable that wikipedia is a medium for documenting and making accessable the works of marginal musicians. See also my arguemnets against deletion of the article I contributed on Red Square (band) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Square (band)) quercus robur 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Re: quercus robur's comment, if a third party had contributed this article, it would mean that there was less of a problem, because someone else would have taken notice of him and wouldn't be writing from personal experience. Postdlf 21:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: specifically We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. WP:V trumps all, except possibly WP:IAR, but that's the usual frame of things around here. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"trumps all" seesm to asume some kind of points scoring thing, which doesn't interest me. If we want wikipedia to only focus on the mainstream and duplicate what the highly inaccurate (from my experience) 'allmusic' posits as 'notable',and sideline and delete the marginal, fine, but to me this diminishes the value of the entire project. quercus robur 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a points scoring thing; my meaning is that exclaiming "but it's obscure and needs to be kept" is overridden by the fact that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Content must be verifiable, and if you're drawing on personal knowledge it still requires sources. If I was to write an article about kitten huffing drawing from my experience in underground world of kitten-dealing, I'd still have to show that there was a primary or secondary source supporting it. To fall back on "these things are undocumented and so it is up to us to document them" is to undermine what Wikipedia is trying to do: build a verifiable and neutral source of information that is freely available to the world as a whole. I feel a rant coming on, so I'll stop here and possibly continue on another subpage of my User page later. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 22:55, 3 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. Tom e r ^talk 06:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newton's fourth law

Nominated for speedy deletion, contested at WP:SD. Might as well put this through AfD. The two comments below are copied from WP:SD. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Google show 652 hits. Keep. --Walter Görlitz 02:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Those hits all seem unrelated to the content of the article; add a few more keywords (like "belief" or "annette") to the search and it gives zero hits. The article also contradicts the information at Isaac Newton. If anything, this page should in my opinion be a redirect to Newton's law of gravity, expect that we don't currently have a separate article on that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't mnake that redirect, because as observed below, Newton's 4th 'is not gravitation — it is not anything; it does not exist. Newton has three and only three laws. Unlucky for him, but we shouldn't imply he has a 4th. -Splash^talk 03:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See beyond the few hundred Google hits here. The term appears only to be used in humourous reference, and without any consistent reference (or any particular humour, but anyway). There appears to be a couple of hits enquiring why Newtons 4th isn't gravitation, but the answer is just "it isn't". I can't see the use of an article about a humorous, but meaningless idiom nor one about what the 4th law definitely isn't. It's not like Gravitation is often referred to as Newton's 4th, either, so let's not go there. If I must cite WP:NOT, then this would be NOT a slang or idiom guide, not a jokebook and not an indiscriminate collection of 'information'. Delete. -Splash^talk 03:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Isaac Newton has three laws. Delete all others. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 03:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete unverifiable. "Belief is all we have"+Newton produces no relevant Google hits. The article also doesn't say why it should be called his "fourth law", or who did so. Kusma (討論) 03:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete — Fails WP:V.— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]

Delete per WP:NOT, as Splash explained. PJM 03:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The current article is about an unverifiable neologistic phrase; possible usages in humor are nn, and have nothing to do with this article.--MayerG 05:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete This appears to be an unfunny joke; certainly it is not a physical law as proposed by Isaac Newton. (aeropagitica) 06:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, hoax, with crippled self-reference indicating its a hoax linas 06:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Term is used in a number of ways, but none of those are encyclopedic. Agree with Splash's comments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete current content per nom and others. Just possibly... consider redirecting to Dean drive, a claimed "reactionless drive" much publicized by the editor of Astounding Science Fiction in the 1950s. Its apparent violation of the laws of physics was explained by the postulation of a "fourth law of motion." Of course, Newton didn't postulate such a law, so it couldn't have have been "Newton's fourth law," could it? Dpbsmith (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. No, it couldn't.--MayerG 14:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete this hoax. Grandmasterka 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, hoax Bad ideas 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, obviously fake. --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as potentially harmful to physics. Well, not really. And I wouldn't even bother BJAODNing this, it's not even funny. Cyde Weys 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - joke. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:28, 3 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 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Nintendo World

First-person account of the game the author is writing. To be released in 2007. Unencyclopedic, vanity and crystal ball. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

delete as per nom. Akerensky99 05:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. –Sommers ^(Talk) 06:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- Astrokey44|talk 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom: Vanity --light darkness 15:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. StarryEyes 15:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 17:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per norm. -Zero^Talk 20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, patent vanity. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not encyclopaedic. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:28, 3 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 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hodgson Ski Tours

Delete: Non-notable corporation. Article even says it's "family run". Has zero hits on Google [11]. Maybe this is a speedy? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Also the author's only contribution. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete — Per nom. Unencyclopedic. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:27, 3 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 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Bullet

Mangled nomination, listing now. No vote. DES ^(talk) 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)}

I mangled the nomination, sorry, and I am withdrawing it. I suggested to the submitter to merge it to 6.8 mm Remington SPC. This is a clear Merge and delete case. Thank you. --Perfecto 05:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The new bullet article is a very good article i vote no it should be kept —The preceding unsigned comment was added by New Guy The 17th (talk • contribs) 01:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC-5)
- User has 10 edits under this ID at this time, but says he has many annon edits on his user page. DES ^(talk) 18:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote merge if there was anything here worth keeping, but it's just a lot of unsorced original research and POV analysis. It reads like an article from a gun mag, and there really isn't anything that could be adapted to an encyclopedia that we don't already have. It's got everything wrong with it from predictions about the future to unsourced assertions to blatant POV. Heck, it's even signed. We're better off to just delete this. Night Gyr 10:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this belongs in a gun magazine, not in Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 15:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above, merge unnecessary. Now that it's listed, we may as well express some consensus so this can get done. Ikkyu2 17:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete POV essay, possible copyvio? It reads like a magazine article. Furthermore, New Bullet is far too generic a title. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research and POV. Night Gyr neatly eliminated every possible reason to merge any of this. --Lockley 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Save This is very much so different than the 6.8 mm Rem. article --New Guy The 17th 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Night Gyr. Rory096 22:15, 4 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 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ~1~

As far as I can tell, past the references given, it doesn't exist. It's not quite patent nonsence, but I think it comes close. It definetly seems has a major lack of notability (it can't be searched for on google, which makes it tricky) and seems to be written to promote the guy who claims he is the "~1~," and said person is not notable. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 03:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete — Completely unverifiable. Couldn't fail WP:V more if it tried.— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]
Delete —- Longhair 04:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. The advertising links to Cafepress should have been deleted on sight. --kingboyk 06:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
delete vanity. linas 06:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Complete nonsense, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school (Or on nn-blogs either!) --light darkness 15:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per User:Lightdarkness. This is so non-notable I don't know whether to laugh or cry. JIP | Talk 15:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per everyone. Royboycrashfan 19:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Bad ideas 20:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, see WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NEO, etc. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete The article itself said it is unverifiable. Copysan 02:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:27, 3 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 (CSD A1). After removing the POV and libellous material, there was no content left to speak of. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joel braverman

Horribly POV and unencyclopedic. Delete and rewrite so as to resember other school articles. Fightindaman 03:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I removed all the POV and libelous text, but the title is still wrong nad there is no redeeming content. Deltabeignet 04:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN Arbustoo 06:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy CSD#1 - Patent nonsense. Cynical 09:41, 2 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 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Gruenhut

Delete. A "famous athlete" with just 1 Google? I don't think so. It's probably a hoax. King of Hearts | (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Its clearly a hoax... the only reason why i was making edits to it is because my little cousin was doing it, sorry about that.--24.15.73.202 04:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete put this hoaxer (and his hoax) out of business. Batman2005 04:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per others. Arbustoo 06:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 10:06 2006-02-02
Delete per nom. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:27, 3 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 - --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jaime Vendera

NN. Only really known because he appeared MythBusters. Drat (Talk) 03:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. A published author of two books as well, and being the first man to break glass with his voice on TV is sufficient for notability I think. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. —This user has left wikipedia 10:06 2006-02-02
Keep per Sjakkalle. Not as impressive as a politicians or world-famous film actor. But sufficiently notable if only for the first man to break glass on TV thing. Books wouldn't be sufficiently notable on their own, but their subject help his case in this instance. -- Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Sjakkalle. -Colin Kimbrell 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Bad nom. There are a lot of one-hit wonders on Wikipedia in the first place. --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:31, 3 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. D e ath phoenix 14:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Lowe

Delete as non-notable advertising executive with no citations. Hdstubbs 04:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Google search for "frank lowe" advertising gives about 111K results. —Achille 2006-02-02 10:06Z
Keep seems to be a very big advertising executive with media play. --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:32, 3 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. Mailer Diablo 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introsexual

Dictdef of a neologism. Only gets 17 google hits, and only 11 unique hits. Notability doubtful. No sources cited. Delete DES ^(talk) 04:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Pureblade | ^Θ 04:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --Zsinj 04:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. And a lame neologism at that. "Introsexual"? Someone who gets off on hooking other people up? Daniel Case 05:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. —This user has left wikipedia 10:03 2006-02-02
Delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 13:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete' Unverifiable, really. --W.marsh 16:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:27, 3 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 Helen Keller. -Splash^talk 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Arthur H. Keller

The father of Helen Keller. The article just cites this fact from her autobiography and is more about her than about her father. I don't see how being the father of a notable person makes the father notable. Delete. Kusma (討論) 04:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Merge into Helen Keller. Batman2005 05:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect Arbustoo 06:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect. Youngamerican 14:00, 2 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 as non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethan Jodziewicz

Delete as a blank page asking to be deleted. Google comes up with nothing. Hdstubbs 04:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The history shows content here. if this were a clearly notable person, a request from the subject (even if verified to be from the subject, which this is not) would not justify deeltion. However, the articel makes few if any claims to notability -- it is almost to the WP:CSD A7 nn-bio level. The article describes a student or recently graduated musician, claims no published work, and no particualrly notable performances. It reads like a CV or a concert program bio. Delete as non-notable. DES ^(talk) 04:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete i'm guessing the subject was the author of the article, who else would write about a middle school orchestra member. Also, who would want information about this guy? Vanity more than likely written by the subject. Batman2005 05:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actualy it looks like the editor was NOT the subject. i suspect that this was inserted by a fan, or a friend, perhaps a not-so-friendly friend. If the content is accurate, the subject is now a college student. DES ^(talk) 18:35, 2 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. -Splash^talk 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitry - Claye (SNCF)

Delete incomprehensible. Appears to be some kind of train station in France? But is just a bulleted list. Doesn't make any sense. Hdstubbs 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep: Train station in/near Paris, its a list of lines serving the station. Four lines means its a major cross-over point. There are 85 other articles in Category:Paris metro, I'm voting keep only because there seems to be a precedent set for this kind of article; otherise, someone needs to file and AfD for 85 other stations, and I doubt that will go far. linas 13:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above Jcuk 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, we have tons of articles about subway stations --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:34, 3 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. Mailer Diablo 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Wayne

Non-notable biography. Rmhermen 04:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable bio (and advertising as well) No Guru 04:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN bio, not sure if it can be speedied as the article claims he is a CEO, but both websites linked to as him "owning" are expired. --light darkness 15:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Stating that he is a CEO is an assertion of notability. However, neither company has an article and, based on the information provided by Lightdarkness, I doubt either would meet WP:CORP. Capitalistroadster 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable; the company has no Wikipedia page. Mr Frosty 19:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I probably have a more notable bio than this guy--M4bwav 19:06, 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 TRANSWIKI to Wikt. -Splash^talk 01:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cupcake party

Delete as non-notable party practice. Google search reveals this is not a common term. Hdstubbs 04:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete author of the article has vandalised before [12]. —This user has left wikipedia 10:02 2006-02-02
Transwiki to wiktionary, if they want it - Google search reveals several thousand hits, and if I've heard of it (on the other side of the planet), then chances are it's a reasonable well-known term. But it's unlikely that it'll ever be more than a dictdef. Grutness...wha? 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki. If Grutness has heard of it, I believe it exists, regardless of the author's history. Please discuss articles based on their merit and not that of their creator. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Google reveals a lot of hits but they are mostly not relevant. Mosly they are cupcake parties, merely parties involving cupcakes and not a specific now referring to this specific type of party. I mean it could go to Wiktionary but there really is no reason to do so. IMO Hdstubbs 19:42, 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. -Splash^talk 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Fensler

Non-notable. An independent filmmaker whose only works appear to be minor copyright infringements. Rmhermen 04:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Batman2005 05:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —This user has left wikipedia 10:00 2006-02-02
Extremely Strong Keep The GI Joe PSAs are a major internet phenomenon. "GI Joe PSAs" turns up over a hundred thousand hits on google. "Body massage" and "porkchop sandwiches" are catchphrases thanks to this man. He created a parody that became extremely popular and which has been repeatedly cited as one of the examples of the possibilities of unauthorized use of copyrighted content. Night Gyr 10:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC) www.jasongillentine.com
Strong Keep I agree with Night Gyr, the GI Joe PSA's are highly notable (not to mention hillarious = www.jasongillentine.com). --light darkness 15:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, his redubs were popular enough to get a cease & desist order. Gazpacho 19:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, artist that got national-level attention --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:36, 3 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 as link spam. - Lucky 6.9 04:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back-space.org

Contains advertising, spam, and vanity. King of Hearts | (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention completely sans content. Say bye-bye. - Lucky 6.9 04:43, 2 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 01:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Search And Rescue Records

Stub with contact information about not-too-notable record company. Delete. Kusma (討論) 04:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Even if the record company was notable, this article reads like advertising. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. wikipedia:don't bite the newcomers.-- Marvin147 00:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn vanity. Don't bite the newcomers has nothing to do with this. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 15:05, 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. -Splash^talk 01:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midnight Special (store)

Delete. Nonnotable bookstore. Leppy 02:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Leppy, Thanks for asking for my feedback on Midnight Special. I'd say that the decision to keep or delete depends upon the overall goals of the Wikipedia's page on Independent bookstores. It was one of Los Angeles' most notable independent bookstores before its closing which is why I added it to the page. If, however, it makes more sense to simply list the name on the Independent bookstore page without a Wikilink, go ahead and do that. I'll leave it up to a general vote. -- Classicfilms

If there really is something that makes it notable beyond just being on that list, then I'd like to see it. I do think that a lot of people in wikiland are too quick to suggest delete on articles that they don't see the use of. I'd not like to be one of those people, so if there is more to it, let's see it. Expand the article to give the significance of the Midnight Special.Leppy 04:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment There are so many things called "Midnight Special" and "The Midnight Special" that there really should be a disambig page instead of just these two variants. (Such as the "Midnight Special" train, the song "Midnight Special," the radio show "Midnight Special," etc.) Crypticfirefly 06:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC) In fact, maybe I'll do that right now. Crypticfirefly 06:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep seems somewhat notable. —This user has left wikipedia 09:56 2006-02-02
Keep and expand. Present content is minimal, but a comercial bookstore that attracted unpaid volunteers? Now that is notable! GeorgeStepanek\^talk 15:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing there. Unpaid volunteers in some couterculture, activist/whatever stores isn't all that uncommon. I had a friend who worked in one. -R. fiend 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Local culture is something Wikipedia needs to embrace. --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:38, 3 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 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kemo For Emo

Delete, non-notable band, with only 193 Googles. I'm not sure if it qualifies for speedy deletion, so I'm bringing it here. King of Hearts | (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete The closest it comes to an assertion of notability is "In 2005, they were runner-up for "Best Pop Punk Band of the Year" by the Houston Press, a newspaper in their hometown." which I don't think cuts it. Best of luck to them, and come back when your tour and album have been a success, but until then it's a speedy candidate imho. --kingboyk 06:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete they do claim notability, but still non-notable band. —This user has left wikipedia 09:53 2006-02-02
Delete, not notable yet. --M e rovingian {T C @} 09:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Come back after your tour and LP. StarryEyes 15:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Bad ideas 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy per Kingboyk --Banana04131 03:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per non-notable bands section of CSD. Cyde Weys 05:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:27, 3 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 keep DES ^(talk) 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mississippi Mud Pie

Slang term (having a different meaning at urbandictionary) for a sexual act "unknown if still in practice today, however rumored...". Delete as unverifiable slang. Kusma (討論) 05:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not Wankapedia. Daniel Case 05:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete oh Christ... I just lost my appetite... this is Complete bollocks, Quote: man defecating into his partner's mouth and then placing his penis inside the mouth performing oral sex until orgasm ?!?!?!?!Well I looked up encyclopedia-of-sex.com as well and they don't list it either. —This user has left wikipedia 09:45 2006-02-02

*Delete as fast as possible. Horrible! Grandmasterka 11:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep rewrite, move per Youngamerican. Grandmasterka 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice to recreation if it is about the notable eponymous dessert and not this sex act. Youngamerican 13:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Change vote to keep, as I re-wrote the article to be about the popular dessert pie that originated in Mississippi. Article should be renamed Mississippi mud pie if kept. Youngamerican 13:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep the rewrite, of course. (The early history could still be deleted). Kusma (討論) 14:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep the rewrite, and purge the other versions from the history if possible. -Colin Kimbrell 17:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep re-write and delete older history if possible. Thanks Youngamerican for fixing it! TMS63112 19:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Copy the rewritten article to Mississippi mud pie and delete this artice, burn it's ashes and scatter them somewhere along w/ its history. —This user has left wikipedia 20:31 2006-02-02
- Comment In keeping complient with the GFDL, We cannot simply copy and paste the article. We have to do a move, then an admin can delete the scatalogical edits before my total rewrite. I almost did the move a second ago, but I am pretty sure that it isn't appropriate to do a move while an AfD is ongoing (although I could be wrong). Youngamerican 20:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  - As you are the only author of the new article, I don't see anything that stops you from putting your article at Mississippi mud pie via cut and paste. You are essentially resubmitting your own material again, not really copying. Kusma (討論) 21:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    - Even though I have made 3 edits? Im going to rummage around some precedents here, hold on. Youngamerican 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment I copied this from the policy guide on moving pages: The "move page" function keeps the entire edit history of the page, before and after the move, in one place, as if the page were always named that way. So, you should never just move a page by cutting all the text out of one page, and pasting it into a new one; old revisions, notes, and attributions are much harder to keep track of if you do that.

This seems to indicate that the article should not be copied and pasted, even by me. I am putting up a RfC on this one. Youngamerican 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No need for a move, I simply deleted the articel and restored only the newer revisions. Thus the history is intact for your three revisions, but the older ones are gone. DES ^(talk) 22:18, 2 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. Stifle 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yankel Miller

He may be one of the top Hasidic funnymen, but that doesn't confer notability. Nor does 247 Google hits. Daniel Case 05:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. 247 Google hits for a Hassidic guy? That's mamish meshuge (really crazy)! His biography should be expanded or merged with badchen. Akerensky99 05:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep the author has a lot of fairly good edits on Jewish topics... assuming good faith. —This user has left wikipedia 09:42 2006-02-02
Keep. While the Google count is low, there appear to be multiple references to commercially released comedy albums; quite a few of the references which turn up suggest that the subject is quite popular in non-English-speaking markets, which in part explains the low Google count. Monicasdude 15:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment yeah he's probably primarily a yiddish speaker.
Keep. Stubby, and could use citation, but a perfectly valid topic. Agree with the above "keepers". One of the few even vaguely prominent contemporary exponents of a centuries old tradition (for which follow up the badchen link, which is in the article). - Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 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. -Splash^talk 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Edison Phase

Spoof. NN. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete zero google results, ( google for "The Edison Phase" sleep). —This user has left wikipedia 09:38 2006-02-02
Delete It's a cool idea, but this isn't the right place for it.Tholomyes 04:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Weregerbil 10:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - why would anyone put so much time into a hoax that is bound to be deleted? While we're at it, please also delete tepping, which is a redirect Raggaga 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:27, 3 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 03:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clickpenang

Non-notable website, only 825 Google hits. Andy Saunders 05:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. Daniel Case 05:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep ~ Maybe on Google , The site is doing great on Yahoo and does provide relevant information on Penang —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aliale (talk • contribs).
Delete Spam, there are only about 400 hits if you don't include the website itself, see Google search. Author has been spamming blogs, guestbooks and sites for attention, see http://www.worldisround.com/articles/129322/ for one example (look at the comment below). —This user has left wikipedia 09:35 2006-02-02
Delete. Advertising. *drew 12:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the website-I'm a Penangite from Malaysia myself , and I did find this website so useful because in Penang Malaysia there are hardly any websites that do provide so valuable information of events , happenings and pictures from this Pearl of the Orient.And Advertising is not that of a question because it is a non-commercial website itself created by a student and not of any official goverment or commercial company.In your talk-penang page someone has mentioned about the website as well.I dont find any commercial reasons behind the listing.Instead we Malaysians are proud that a normal citizen has gone that so far creating this website . Regards.--Aliale 14:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Aliale

Delete as spam and advertising. —Cleared as filed. 05:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable information site. I could see a strong argument for a one-line "External links" entry on Penang, but not a page of its own. Wikipedia is not a Web directory. -Harmil 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Penang is one of my favourite places in the world to visit, and it is nice that there is a site where public events in Penang can be announced. However, this article is nothing more than a click-through add for said site, which doesn't appear notable and certainly doesn't merit an encyclopedia entry. Ergot 20:13, 3 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 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exfuga

Flash game website with no assertion of notability. Possibly vanity by User:Exfuga (user's only edits). Delete. Kusma (討論) 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as vanity - same guy as http://digg.com/users/exfuga and User:Exfuga. —This user has left wikipedia 09:28 2006-02-02
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Blatant WP:VSCA. --Kinu 08:16, 4 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, although it sounds as if some merge work might want to be done by a willing volunteer. -Splash^talk 01:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The AC/EP

Unverifiable album.-- Perfecto 05:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Incidentally, seeing there are 1500 articles using {{Album infobox}} and thousands? using {{album-stub}}, might I ask if there's any guideline to see whether any of them are encyclopedic? --Perfecto 05:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, because this information is, in fact, verifiable. The AC/EP is mentioned on MxPx's official website, mxpx.com (more specifically, here). This is an EP released by well-known band MxPx and I can't possibly see why this would be "unverifyable." EdGl 06:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge with B-Movie (DVD) Both items are sold together in a 2-disk set, disk one being the "B-Movie" and disk 2 being "The AC/EP" (they're not sold separately). Both articles are stubs anyway, so I think they should be combined. EdGl 06:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC) EdGl 06:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Also, it was released by SideOneDummy Records, a popular indie label. This 2-disk set is being sold at their online store. EdGl 07:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Please note that the title of this 2-disk set is "B-Movie", and that The AC/EP is included in this. Therefore, if this article were to be merged with B-Movie (which it should), move The AC/EP article to the B-Movie (DVD) article and not vice-versa. And of course make "The AC/EP" redirect to "B-Movie (DVD)". EdGl 02:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Merge. If the band is notable then this 2 disk release presumably is too. A merge would be best of course. --kingboyk 06:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and move the B Movie into this article. —This user has left wikipedia 09:24 2006-02-02

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, gently. -Splash^talk 01:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Running with Scissors (webcomic)

What things come to mind when you think of Running with Scissors? Do you think of this non notable webcomic? With an Alexa rank of over 3.5 million and most Google search results for "Running with Scissors" webcomic bringing up 115 links, the majority of them irrelevent (either the game developers or Weird Al album), I don't think this is notable, and it fails any sort of WP:WEB criteria. - Hahnchen 05:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 05:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep the author of the article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics and that was his first article. I'ts not a hoax, thus I'll assume good faith on this one. —This user has left wikipedia 09:22 2006-02-02
- Comment - How does being a member of the Wikiproject make the subject matter of this article any more notable? The article may very well be in good faith, and it's not a hoax. You noted on another AFD that Google only came back with 50 or so links, this one comes back with similar or even less discarding the irrelevent entries. Nice user page btw. - Hahnchen 09:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment ~ You may be right, In my heart I feel bad deleting this guys first article —This user has left wikipedia 11:24 2006-02-02
Delete per nominator. Better to delete their first article, so they don't make the same mistake again. Being part of the project shows me he cares for webcomics (perhaps too much), but that doesn't mean the article suddenly follows the WP:WEB criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Good faith or not, it is simply not notable. StarryEyes 16:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 16:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, it's a webcomic article done to applicable WikiProject standards, and the webcomic is out there as is regularly updated. I don't see the problem. --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I agree that good faith has nothing to do with it; the subject just isn't notable enough. —Cleared as filed. 05:24, 3 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 03:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angus George Harcourt Perry

Delete, hoax entry. Unidude 05:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Totally unverifiable. Fails WP:V miserably. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]
Delete Google search for all name variations + porlock gives zero results. The author of the article has added a reference to Man_from_Porlock (that I'll be removing shortly). —This user has left wikipedia 09:19 2006-02-02
- Comment Not sure I understand what you mean here. The Man_from_Porlock article looks OK - it's more usually referred to as Person from Porlock though so maybe a move is in order? Dlyons493 Talk 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment It looks OK because I removed it ~ Cheers —This user has left wikipedia 13:36 2006-02-03
Delete per everyone. Royboycrashfan 17:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:26, 3 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 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Test Squad

Article non verifiable; I get 2 Google hits for "Test Squad" circus Poughkeepsie. Source given at the article is also a 404. Delete. Andy Saunders 05:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unverifiable unless proved otherwise. Kappa 06:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. No evidence presented that this circus existed let alone that it was notable. Capitalistroadster 07:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete They even misspelled Poughkeepsie. —This user has left wikipedia 09:09 2006-02-02
Delete per everyone. Royboycrashfan 17:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please allow this article to remain. I have heard of this group and was pleased to find it included in Wikipedia. And, in fact, Poughkeepsie is indeed spelled "Poughkeepsie"

Delete per nom. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:26, 3 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 merged by GeorgeStepanek. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gravitational shift

Adds nothing of value not said better in earlier article on Gravitational redshift CH 05:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Boldly merged the two articles and turned this into a redirect. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge the two. Arbustoo 06:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Was merged, archive the AfD. —This user has left wikipedia 09:08 2006-02-02

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. With the information now added to the article, I think I'd like to see this re-examined before deletion. The allmusic.com page in particular does not seem complete. NB. I had to replcae the tinyurl link with the full Google link since tinyurl links are now banned sitewide. -Splash^talk 01:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edison Glass

Creator conceded to me that this band lacks notability. Band and albums not in allmusic, not in discogs-- Perfecto 05:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --Perfecto 05:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. There's really no reason for you to express your opinion in this discussion area. The fact that you put the article up for deletion and explained your reason for doing so would allow even a very feeble-minded person, let alone a closing admin, to infer your opinion on the matter. :) Ikkyu2 05:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  - "Opinions" not allowed in a "discussion" area? I'm the feeble-minded because you don't make sense. --Perfecto 06:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    - Come now, sir. You're allowed to do whatever you want. But anyone would think you have a dog in the race - you expressed your opinion when you nominated the article for deletion, then again when you created the explanatory text, then again when you put the first opinion up. Let me show you what that looks like:
      - Delete. Ikkyu2 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      - Delete. Ikkyu2 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      - Delete. Ikkyu2 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    - Now I ask you: is that appropriate? Ikkyu2 16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  - It seems you propose I stop at ===[[Edison Glass]]=== and skip the explanatory text and the first bullet. Is that what you do? --Perfecto 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    - I don't nominate very many articles for deletion; it seems to me that the explanatory text is important, but putting the first bullet down feels like an attempt to channel groupthink to direct the discussion in a certain way. I think it's important to avoid, not only impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety. Ikkyu2 01:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. per nom. Arbustoo 06:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Although this band lacks "notability", this is not a good reason to delete this article, since Wikipedia:Notability is not an official Wikipedia guideline. I believe that obscure content is not harmful to Wikipedia, so this article should be kept. (No hard feelings if it winds up being deleted, though.) EdGl 07:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Notability (music) is a guideline. If you had read the introductory paragraph of Wikipedia:Notability before you cited it, you would have learned this. Ikkyu2 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  - I tend to agree with your point about obscure content -- really, obscure things that someone might someday search are one of the primary values of an encyclopedia. But, there's a distinction here -- encyclopedias don't make things notable, and enhancing perceived notability is often the purpose of articles herein re. very new or unreferenced topics. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. laughing per crap above mine. Batman2005 07:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete This band is listed on Allmusic.com with one album A Burn or a Shiver on Allmusic.com see [13].As such, they probably don't meet our musical notability guidelines but may well do in the future. Capitalistroadster 08:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete a long and complex search for the band name + (any) album gives about 120 results, see [14]. —This user has left wikipedia 09:04 2006-02-02
Delete per Achille. Royboycrashfan 17:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, WP:MUSIC Bad ideas 21:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment After reading Capitalistroadster's input on the matter, I agree with him; this band does not meet the guidelines now, but they may in the future. For the record, this band's producer Brad Wood co-produced a Smashing Pumpkins album and produced several Placebo albums ([15]). Edison Glass toured with Roper, The O.C. Supertones, and The Wedding, all well-known bands within the Christian scene [16]. Also, their cd "A Burn or a Shiver" will be released in April in many major electronics stores in the U.S. (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.) I do not know if this makes the band "notable" or not, but at the very least it gives the band the definite potential to deserve an article on Wikipedia. Therefore, you may delete this article if you want; I'm guessing it's no trouble to start it up again once it meets the guidelines. In the meantime I will study these guidelines and then write this article again when appropriate. As a new Wikipedian I am still learning :-). EdGl 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as I read WP:MUSIC there's no reason any act that's done a tour in the United States to be deleted on grounds of non-notability. --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent find, Alex. Wikipedia:Notability (music) states the following: "A musician or ensemble...is notable if it...Has gone on...a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country..." In that case, Edison Glass is indeed a notable band; if this article is deleted, then it would be a violation of an official Wikipedia guideline. EdGl 03:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I've updated the article to be more in line with Wikipedia standards for band articles. --AlexWCovington (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your excellent edits to the Edison Glass article. When I get a chance I will add some information regarding their nationwide tour with Roper, and any further information I can find on this band. EdGl 05:15, 3 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 01:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing Personal

This [17], a series of single panel drawings, hosted on a site with no Alexa rank. Fails any sort of WP:WEB guideline, has no assertion of notability whatsoever. - Hahnchen 05:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Google search for "Nothing Personal" "Roel Schuit" -wikipedia gives 53 non authoritative results. —This user has left wikipedia 08:57 2006-02-02
Delete, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 16:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, reads as if somebody was telling you personally about it. Royboycrashfan 17:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Nothing personal, but delete. StarryEyes 17:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. (Following my webstats, I not only found out that there's another page about my cartoon/comic site on Wikipedia besides the one in the webcomics section, but also that it's up for deletion. I can only concur with the above: this page has no place here, even though I appreciate the - no doubt - good intentions (towards me, anyway) of the person that put it there in the first place. My apologies on his/her behalf. Yours, Roel Schuit).
Delete per nom. Ruby 05:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet the verifiability and sourcing requirements of Wikipedia. ENCEPHALON 07:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:25, 3 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] Child Online Protection Act i

Delete - Absolutely no reason for this to be here - we've already got a perfectly good Child Online Protection Act article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xorkl000 (talk • contribs).

Redirect to Child Online Protection Act -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 06:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete: That was a 22 word low quality entry as compared by the original 440 word entry. Someone was just did not find the info on that, I went ahead and redirected for now. —This user has left wikipedia 08:51 2006-02-02
Delete. Nothing to merge and is an unlikely search typo, so no need for redirect. Youngamerican 14:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:25, 3 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[18] 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 speedy delete. – ABCD ^e✉ 23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neptunes Convoy

This article was started by 220.236.249.174, whose only edits were to this article. The band was formed in 2005. The article links to the band's purevolume and myspace sites. Real notability is not asserted. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Delete. Joel7687 06:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Trying to google info on the band gives 7 results (google for "Neptunes Convoy" australia OR "michael black" OR "ben haggerty" OR dominique -wikipedia) . —This user has left wikipedia 08:42 2006-02-02
~~Delete~~.

 It all began one morning when founding members Michael Black and Ben Haggerty decided to jump on a keyboard and make musical bliss.

Such information does not a notable band make. Royboycrashfan 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete or speedy delete under A7. bikeable (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Absolutely no assertion of importance. Royboycrashfan 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete musical bliss or not, myspace is still not a source. Bad ideas 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Have completed a demo and apparently playing a lot of gigs around my hometown. No signs of compliance with our music notability guidelines, however. Capitalistroadster 00:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)"
Delete. NN / vanity. Cnwb 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I live in the city, try to follow its (small) music scene, and still haven't heard of these guys. Ambi 09:12, 3 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 (A7). howch e ng {chat} 07:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Clarke

Non-notable bio of a student government president. One run-in with Phelps and co. resulting in 17 distinct ghits, mostly from the school's website. Delete Makemi 06:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as vanity -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 06:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable biography. (aeropagitica) 07:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete meets the criteria for {{db-bio}} Savidan 07:39, 2 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 01:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks

Contributor’s conclusion: You are wrong, I am right, but I did a lousy job this time and don't have the time to spare at this momnet to do better; so let’s xxx it. I’ll do the honor and clean it out as best I can myself right now. I shall be back with this, but the next time I’ll get it right. Thanks for the lesson. Useful. ericbritton 16:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be original research of some sort, on a topic we all know and love. The article seems to consist mostly of a long list of other wp articles, plus assorted "notes to self" and "notes to collaborators". linas 06:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

- Comment: Another reason to delete is that the title of this article is a neologism and WP has specific policies against such things. A google search will quickly show that this and other WP pages are the only pages that use this term. Once again: WP is not the place for original research linas 05:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

delete, as nonsense; possibly a candidate for speedy. linas 06:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Arbustoo 06:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's clearly not nonsense or speedy. But neither is wiki a web host for research groups. Dlyons493 Talk 08:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Non-speedy delete Unencyclopedic.--Craig Stuntz 15:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, original research and poorly written. Royboycrashfan 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not encyclopaedic. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree ericbritton 18:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC) (See below)

Hmm. If ever there was a concept that I should think Wikipedia should be making room for it is precisely this “ Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks”. This is not to defend the quality of the present entry/intended place holder and starting block – but I do think it argues for someone coming in and lend a helping hand at a time when I am up to my neck in survival tasks (all of which incidentally involve . . . self-organizing collaborative networks – click to http://www.ecoplan.org and its dozen or so focus programs to see how this works in the real world. . . warts and all).

I have to say that I am a bit surprised at the virulence, but above all disappointed at the stolid unanimity of this reaction. I would have anticipated in a place such as this more variety of response, more creativity So let me see if I can weigh in here with a thought or two which to my mind suggests that zapping this entry in process would be a bad move. I am incidentally pleased to have this opportunity, because I am a big believer in cognitive dissonance as a knowledge building tool. We try to use this in our own international work to welcome a purposeful, rich imbalance of views and positions within a shared forum, and then let them rip. And since we have a small example of this here, well let’s have a look.

For starters, I came to the House of Wikipedia a few months ago with both genuine curiously and real interests. As I rattled around in it over the last month or so, I been impressed by much of what I have seen and experienced, but also noted with some surprise quite a number of to my mind outstanding omissions – almost all of which in a broad area which I would characterize as “conceptual thinking about critical challenges of society and technology”. To the extent that there is not even an entry for this critical tool . . . or at least was not until earlier this afternoon in which I sat down to knock in a first cut which you will find of course at [[19]], which you may not like either ;-). (BTW, don’t you find it a bit strange that something as important as this had not been at least opened up as an entry. Of course this is not quite fair, since the Wikipedia is still very new and since it is natural that you would set out at first in more charted waters. But hey, but here we are.)

We live in an era in which change and speed of change are more than ever and faster than ever metrics of our daily lives. And while much of the world is indifferent to this, there is a growing current of thinkers and doers who understand that new concepts, new ways of organizing our societies, daily lives and actions are critical to our collective well being. I can think of two good reasons why Wikipedia of all new institutions should recognize this underling reality. First, because you yourselves are an example of this very process of adaptation. And second, if you cannot gear up to handle these new categories of emergent trends, then you will show that you are stuck in the old model. Let me see if I can be more concrete for you.

Let’s look at a traditional “transition instrument” for just one moment which has had no problem finding its ay into these pages. Say [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amherst_College Amherst College]. There it is: grounded today in a physical and institutions structure, but in 1820 nothing more than an idea on the part of (mainly) a single person, [Noah Webster], that what was going on at [Harvard College was somehow not good enough. A concept in 1820, bricks and motor (and hopefully a bit more) in 2006. Okay? The point that I am trying to make is that at one point a simple “concept” – not mind you a ‘research project’ – can gradually advance to the point where it becomes a or at least a potential “society shaping” phenomenon which is worthy of explicit note. Including in a place like the Wikipedia. Let’s move up a couple of notches in terms of abstraction.

Consider for example that of [sustainable development], a phrase in a report in the late 1980’s and even to this day a concept which is not at all well understanding (nor, sadly, particularly effective as a policy molding or even informing device). And yet, here it is – not very profound but workmanlike and probably as good as the concept itself deserves.

Let me take this even closer to the bone and draw to your attention the new (and still very much in process ) entry on [sustainable transportation] . Neither of these two concepts have bricks and mortar to prove to the world that they do indeed exist, but there they are and at least in this latter case that are in fact actively informing public policy, if not in every administration that might come to your minds at least in enough places for them to be considered useful and usefully evolving shaping concepts.

So, if all this of this true – and I can see a number of people who might already be asleep on this one – what about the present and admittedly weak and, yes!, badly in need of work entry on Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks? Is it subject for the virtual dustbin to which the six of you are consigning it. I think you are wrong friends, because this is one of the most important operational concepts around that is as yet poorly understood but nonetheless going to take on better definition and with it increased importance in the ways in which we organize ourselves for a better world. And part of this process of definition is indeed its presence in Wikipedia which is increasingly a first- stop shop for anyone who wants to know what is up in the world we live in.

If this don’t work – and since we know the underlying concept to be as hard as steel -- we can always take solace in the words of Max Planck when it comes to how scientific truths must sometimes make their way:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Oh yeah. My vote: Keep it and help make it better. ericbritton 16:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Eric, Wikipedia is not a blog nor a place at which to publish vague articles on pop phenomena. There are plenty of other places for this kind of creative output: wikis such as "everything2", refereed journals such as "first monday", or personal web pages. This article is no more appropriate than it would be to have allowed Eric Raymond to first publish his "Homesteading the Noosphere" essay here. WP is not the place for original research. linas 18:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, after the vote is over, I suggest that this article be a redirect to Homesteading the Noosphere. linas 18:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. If ericbritton wants to create an article he should do it completely and in one moment, not to leave it in such state for months. The article as it is now doesn't fit any Wiki criteria. My vote is about quality, not about validity of the topic. Pavel Vozenilek 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

novel usage of the word "months".--Marvin147 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. interesting topic, although deprecate Capitalizing Every Word. -- Marvin147 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, but possibly merge some of the content into Massively distributed collaboration, which pre-dates it and covers some of the same ground. It's indeed an interesting developing topic, but I agree with Pavel Vozenilek that the quality of the article is inadequate: it not only appears to breach the Wikipedia policy of no original research (which no one has explicitly mentioned but I hope ericbritton has read), but also ignores other style and content guidelines, for example by including a section signed by Eric, and even by having underscores in wiki links. -- JimR 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Delete (see below for reasons) - everything on the current version is unencyclopedic and needs to be deleted, but the topic is certainly encyclopedic. I see no reason to delete the article outright; why not replace everything thats there with a small stub? -Pierremenard 03:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

- Comment Why not indeed? This is Wikipedia remember :-) You are free to do this. -- JimR 05:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried to do this, but after reading everything thats there I see that the topic of self organizing networks is already covered in Emergence and Self organization. Changing my vote to delete. --Pierremenard 05:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NOR. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 15:04, 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 redirect to Globe Theatre. See Talk:Shakespeare's Stage for rationale. Tom e r ^talk 07:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare's Stage

Textdump of someone's paper, clear original research. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete or merge salvageable content into Elizabethan theatre. Makemi 06:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is a high-school essay, non-encyclopædic. Delete as original research, as per WP:NOT. (aeropagitica) 07:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Holy moly original research copypasted from some class essay. —This user has left wikipedia 08:36 2006-02-02
Simply redirect to Elizabethan theatre, nothing there to merge, but keep as plausible search term. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Globe Theatre which is where his plays were staged. Capitalistroadster 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - essay. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:24, 3 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 (hoax) Tom e r ^talk 07:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inger Worblethrop

Zero google hits for Inger Worblethrop. Non-notable or hoax. Weregerbil 07:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as Complete bollocks They called themselves Do Hast In fact Du Hast is a grammy winning song from Rammstein. —This user has left wikipedia 08:19 2006-02-02
Delete - hoax. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:23, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sim City Journal Union

List of CJs (city journals - whatever they are) associated with SimCity 4. Each one is, I am sure, non-notable. A list of them is equally non-notable. -- RHaworth 08:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC) -- In that you would be mistaken at least 5 CJ's in the SCJU have recieved awards and honourable mentions from the two major heavyweights "Simtropolis" and "SimCity Central".

Delete Yep, if you remove results for one particular forum: "sim city" "journal union" -simtropolis.com nets only 3 Google results —This user has left wikipedia 08:16 2006-02-02 - Considering it's only been present on the internet since mid July 2005, what would you expect. The website is even younger.
Delete as per nom. --M e rovingian {T C @} 08:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, only a single Google result. That goes with any other CJs or CJs list for that matter (per nom), except those actually garnering a sizable attention or controvesy from notable non-SimCity parties. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 09:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC) ╫
Delete--nixie 11:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep The article had just been formed the day it was marked for deletion, so it wasn't done yet. Just wait and see what happens to it before you consider what to do with it.
Merge If merged, the content would be part of Simtropolis, the list merged with that on SimCity 4, and then that moved to List of city journals. The delete option would also do the same.-TrackerTV 04:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. —Cleared as filed. 05:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
DeleteIn comparison to all items in an Encyclopedia, something like this is very irrevelvant. Thus, I strongly recommend it be deleted and merged with the original SimTropolis article. -AlabamaLlama 19:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete The sites doling out awards to these guys may be notable, but their award recipients aren't. This is not an Emmy. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Honourbale? A whole bale of honor? Well ... I may have to reconsider my vote ... thinking about it ... nope, still delete. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment:1. Fixed spelling error. 2. Don't merge. Albeit SimTropolis has more of the CJs in the SCJU, there is one exclusive to SimCity Central and one that is mirrored on SCC from Simtropolis. By the way, SimCity Central IS getting an article today. -TrackerTV 23:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Changed vote: I am switching my vote to Merge. The content would become part of Simtropolis, the category dropped, and the list of CJs combined with that at SimCity 4 and then moved to List of City Journals, a new article. -TrackerTV 02:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge per TrackerTV --Jelligraze 06:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
About the first search: The name is often abbreviated as SCJU. Over 19 out of 60 Google pages, only 24/285 possible were related to the SCJU. -TrackerTV 22:45, 4 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. Tom e r ^talk 07:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush Crimes Commission

Delete

The "Commission" which is the topic of this page is not notable and does not rise to Wikipedia's standard for acceptability. This "commission" has no more credibility than a mock trial conducted in a law school class, or even in a high school social studies class.

The "indictments" hold no weight, and the supposed court has no jurisdiction to act on its "findings"

Many of the criticisms mentioned in the article are already raised in their respective articles about the specific issues.

Much of the rest of the article is filled with original research that is not cited.

A mention of this "tribunal" may be warranted under the listed sponsor Not In Our Name, but the Commission itself is not notable enough for its own article. RWR8189 08:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep I got 35,000 hits for this thing on Google. I'd rather we include it and tell people what it is rather than say nothing about it. –Shoaler (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Many hits perhaps, but confined almost exclusively to the echo-chamber of the leftist blogosphere. It warants no more than a mention in its parent organization's article. Also, there are only 144 unique hits on Google before similar pages are omitted.RWR8189 10:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. written with high level of POV and overstating the importance of this mock commission. Xtra 11:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and stub or fix POV problems. IMO putting a POV template on the article would be a better first step than AfD. --Craig Stuntz 15:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Thousands of Google hits. I slapped a {{NPOV}} tag on the article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup Jcuk 22:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Crotalus horridus. (edited for typo) Wisco 04:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia should not attempt to whitewash political movements from its pages. --AlexWCovington (talk) 05:11, 3 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 merge as per RayGates; this is an editorial decision due to lack of consensus. Feel free to call me a WP:DICK on WP:DRV. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SGCSim (Computer Program), Stargate command simulator'

(Original nomination and votes for SGCSim (Computer Program) only.) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-03 15:34Z

Non-notable program that simulates what is sometimes seen on computer screens in the background of SG1 scenes. Ugh. And it's not even being worked on anymore. Cyde Weys 06:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 06:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
What, doesn't the act of buying a domain automagically make someone or something notable? No? You're sure? OK, Delete. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 06:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, Adrian Lamo is voting on my AfD nomination! I feel special. --Cyde Weys 07:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

... but would you be as jazzed if I'd voted to keep? :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 08:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote Keep. It is a fairly recent artical, and until just now, most of the people who use SGCSim were unaware of the page here. I feel we should give the artical a chance to be made better. tpg1989 10:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tpg1989 (talk • contribs)'s only contributions are to the SGCSim articles, talk pages, and this AFD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 07:41Z
Delete, non-notable software. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-03 12:35Z
Delete per Quarl. Kusma (討論) 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

See also: SGCSim (Forum) (AfD discussion). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-03 12:38Z

I am bundling the AFD for Stargate command simulator' at this point. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-03 15:32Z

(nomination for Stargate command simulator') "Stargate command simulator" gets one non-wiki Google hit; delete non-notable. Melchoir 09:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(votes re Stargate command simulator')

Keep, but remove trailing apostrophe. Google for 'SGCSim Project' returns 1632 hits.RayGates 03:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with SGCSim (Computer Program) as per Dr. Cash below. I was not previously aware of the other article.RayGates 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, remove apostrophe. --AlexWCovington (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. That many Google hits isn't really impressive, and there isn't anything notable about this. —Cleared as filed. 05:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn software product, and per Google hits. Kusma (討論) 05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge Article should be merged with SGCSim (Computer Program). Dr. Cash 05:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge - I agree. Article should be merged with SGCSim (Computer Program). P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 02:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Really, this just isn't notable. I'm sorry. I even sort of like SG1 and computer simulations. Cyde Weys 06:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Begin bundled AFD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-03 15:33Z

Delete both. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-03 15:33Z
Delete, it has an ok number of Google hits, but popularity doesn't mean notability. I mean, what SG-related thing *isn't* going to be a bit popular online? And I say that as a reasonably persistent watcher of SG-[*] myself. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Given that there seems to be no support to keep this as an independent article, I suggest Merge into Triva section of Stargate SG-1 RayGates 22:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
In the nn artical, it says something about having over 5,000 users. I have evidence of numbers over the last 12 months. SGCSim.com has 1,003 downloads. Original release on SG1files.com has 4,304 downloads, and the latest release on SG1files.com has 11,501 downloads. Thats a total of 16,808 downloads. And that is only over the last 12 months maximum. Every time the SGCSim.com website gets erased (has happened from various hosts), the number count is reset there. Last time that happened was June 2005. The counts from SG1files.com are starting from April 2005. I would safely estimate at least twice of what we have evidence for. And this doesn't include versions before v5.0.2, as there were no recorded counts for them. (v1, v2, v3, and v4.1). We should at least Merge the two articals. tpg1989 23:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- 5000 downloads doesn't equate to 5000 users, especially if there have been so many releases. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-04 03:40Z
  - The number I gave you was for the current version, 5.0.2, and its not even for all the downloads of that version. On SG1files.com, it was released there as 5.0.2, and then re-released with a tiny change. Users were advised that if they had already downloaded it that there was no need to download the other one. It is 16,808 recorded downloads for version 5.0.2. Numbers were not recorded before 2005, and previous versions of the sim have been around from at least 2002. tpg1989 06:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep--Ted-m 17:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete both. I shudder to think how pathetic a person would have to be to make something like this. --Agamemnon2 13:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Agamemnon, I shudder to think of how it feels to not be a fan of anything. I can also say, with mild certaintity that there will be a Beta of the new version sometime soon. ~Avalon304 23:16, 06 Febuary 2006 (UTC)
  
  Avalon304 (talk • contribs)'s only contributions are to this AFD and Image:Sgcsim7nq.png. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 07:38Z

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 (speedy deletion criterion G1). howch e ng {chat} 19:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mega Man XD

Pure nonsense. No such game exists. Speedy it. Zero^Talk 09:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 10:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as badly written crystal ball hoax. Kusma (討論) 13:55, 2 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. D e ath phoenix 14:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kiwi technologies

Previously listed on Pages needing translation. I'm moving it to here as it is in fact advert material on some non-notable company and products; should be deleted per WP:CORP. Hillel 09:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"MMMMMMM! I smell spam!!!' Delete. Grutness...wha? 11:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - spam. --Hurricane111 00:16, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lowri

Dicdef, already transwiki'd Alai 09:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ruby 14:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete also, the insect thing? Never heard it. Maybe a student prank, who knows. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 14:48, 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 Delete. D e ath phoenix 14:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lab Rats

Non-notable podcruft, borders on being simple link-spam. Delete and redirect to Brown Rat as a plural of a colloquial name for the species. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:41, Feb. 2, 2006

Delete, per nom Bad ideas 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect, per nom. -R. fiend 23:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:23, 3 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. D e ath phoenix 14:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubber and Spoons Take The Bus

Non-notable podcruft. 29 unique google hits, out of 140. Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:43, Feb. 2, 2006

Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 19:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:23, 3 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 deleted by Petaholmes as patent nonsense. Stifle 11:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Gregg

Delete. Appears to be made up. No results in google. Tim 10:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. db-bio. Weregerbil 11:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as non-notable bio, most probaly a hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:33, 2 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 (withdrawn by the nominator). D e ath phoenix 14:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palaeoxylology

This term doesn't seem to exist. "Palaeoxylology" only gets wiki mirrors and what I believe to be the correct spelling ("paleoxylology") gets none. It's therefore inappropriate to put it in either wikitonary or wikipedia unless an offline source is found. (I tagged it on Wiktionary as well) Mgm|^(talk) 11:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See my comment below. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: google for "palaeoxylological" for a change, to keep the mirrors out. It's certainly a valid, existing term, being used in titles of a few academic papers, though not terribly frequent. That it means what the article says it means seems clear (Greek "palaeo" and "xylon" 'wood'). Whether we can get enough material about it for a Wikipedia (as opposed to Wiktionary) stub, I can't say. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The article was a decent stub before Brya moved the content to wiktionary (thereby removing its edit history from normal view on wikipedia) and replaced it with a wiktionary hyperlink. I suggest we reinstate the original version. Aecis ^Mr. ^Mojo ^risin' 12:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea, Lukas. I hereby withdraw my request to delete it, but like to ask you all to decide whether we need the old stub here or move the entry on Wiktionary. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, 2 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 keep, withdrawn by nominator (me), with no other delete votes. Stifle 23:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of legal abbreviations

Dead-end list that is probably only of relevance to people with a major interest in the topic. Stifle 11:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Far more people in the world have a major interest in law than in, say, YTMND fads. StarryEyes 16:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. It has potential. Royboycrashfan 19:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above Jcuk 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Definitely useful for reading such limited-importance papers as the laws of our country. Of relevance to everyone. Cyde Weys 06:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep useful for readinf legal documents and links abbreviations to their full article counterparts. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, let's get this off per WP:SNOW. Stifle 23:34, 4 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 01:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of national parks of Belarus

It is a list with one entry, and it's also something that should be a category. Stifle 11:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete and replace with a category, Im sure there are more NPs in belarus, but a cat will catch them all ::Supergolden:: 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete and replace with a category. Royboycrashfan 19:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand if possible. Lists and Categories are both useful. Jcuk 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ unless at least two more exist and are added. Single item lists are retarded, and can't even qualify as a list. -R. fiend 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep now. My criteria have been met. -R. fiend 05:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Belarus is a large country and a list can give information categories can't.--T. Anthony 04:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per T. Anthony. --AlexWCovington (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per T Anthony and Jcuk, espcially now it has more than one entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 3 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. D e ath phoenix 14:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Didx

The article is essentially an advertisement. -- Kjkolb 11:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, advertising for a service that, on the evidence of the article, might become notable in the future (i.e. WP:NOT a crystal ball). Sliggy 13:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Craig Stuntz 15:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, reads like an advertisement. Royboycrashfan 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - advertising. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:23, 3 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 - dubious consensus, but more keep than delete. See Talk:List of national parks of Dominica for more. Tom e r ^talk 07:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of national parks of Dominica

As per Belarus, it's a list of one park. Stifle 11:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep and expand — The article might only have one park, but it looks notable enough. If there are more parks, perhaps the author simply hasn't gone to all of them, nor know of them, and is waiting for other editors to edit. Kareeser|^Talk! 14:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. When Dominica gets more than one park, then we can make a list. Until then, it is utterly redundant listcruft. StarryEyes 16:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete and replace with a category. I'm sure there are more NPs in Dominica but a Cat. will catch them all, no need for a list. ::Supergolden:: 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand per Kareeser. Royboycrashfan 19:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep All countries with a national park should have a list of national parks. Merchbow 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Both Lists and Categories are useful. Jcuk 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ unless at least two more exist and are added. Single item lists are retarded, and can't even qualify as a list. If this is the only park then all links to this article can be replaced with the name of the park, which is much more sensible. -R. fiend 23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Article expanded sufficiently. -R. fiend 06:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone can be bothered to find more than one park to actually make it a list. Lists and cats can both be useful, so there's no good reason to delete it in that regard. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep — They have a bunch of national parks. I added some. — RJH 16:16, 3 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. D e ath phoenix 14:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of assets owned by Grinner's Food Systems Limited

One of the worst examples of listcruft I've ever seen. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host. Stifle 11:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom StarryEyes 16:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
delete as listcruft ::Supergolden:: 17:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft Royboycrashfan 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, a "Grinner's Food Systems" category might be more appropriate. --AlexWCovington (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:23, 3 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 keep, no need to keep this on AFD. Withdrawn by nominator with no other votes to delete. Stifle 23:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Marathi language television channels

List in which only one link is blue and seems to be of interest to very few people. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 11:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Underdeveloped due to systemic bias, but potentially useful.-Colin Kimbrell 17:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as above. Underpopulated, but just as valid as this, this, and all these. Bhumiya 19:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the above. Royboycrashfan 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Marathi has 70 million native speakers and 20 million second language speakers. Merchbow 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep as per above Jcuk 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep On a side note I hate the word "cruft." (I may have used it once or twice to fit in, but never again) You should use real words to explain your disapproval. It seems to me "cruft" is just a catch-all "I don't like this, but I have no convincing reason why" word.--T. Anthony 04:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay the link to the word listcruft, an article you created, says it means:Obsolete, non-notable, or only of interest to a few. Well as this is a living language with existing TV channels obsolete doesn't apply. The language is apparently spoken by 70 million so it's not non-notable or "only a few" either.--T. Anthony 11:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That said it needs attention. After almost three years it has only three names two of them red links. If there actually are that few Marathi language channels this should perhaps, instead, become an article on Marathi language television. Lists are often best when, as a list, they are too long to work in an article.--T. Anthony 11:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

- Comment: I agree. However, I am not using "cruft" as a catch-all - I cited a reason at the top of my nomination.
Keep, potentially useful. Just because articles haven't been created yet, doesn't mean those redlinks should be deleted. They promote article creation. Besides, cruft is not a valid reason to delete something. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 3 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. D e ath phoenix 14:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of illbient musicians

Appears to be a list created just for the sake of having such a list, and/or of interest to very few people. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 11:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. If we're going to delete this one then we'd have to delete every single list in List of musicians because this list is no more or less significant than the others. Feel free to raise this as a general discussion, but let's not just delete one randomly selected item out of many. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 15:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Much better served by a category. This is hardly a "random selection", George, considering this list has about three items. (Though I do support transforming all the musician lists into categories. What better place to start?) StarryEyes 16:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, textbook category situation. Although I have to admit having to vote on this article taught me what 'illbient' meant. Thanks, article! Lord Bob 17:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, musicians (and everybody else) can be categorised using categories (its what they're for). Lists are not needed. ::Supergolden:: 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete and replace with category. Royboycrashfan 19:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Lists and Categories are both useful in different ways. Jcuk 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Lists are extremely useful because they indicate which musicians do and don't have articles yet (presuming they meet WP:NMG of course). Capitalistroadster 00:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I've added a handful more. Some of them are redlinks, so they can't be part of the suggested category. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Illbient which seems to be a pretty small article and maybe a list would give a better sense of what kind of music it means.--T. Anthony 04:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep , I guess. I've never heard of "illbient" music before but I guess it sounds like something I'd like. Cyde Weys 06:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Capitalistroadster. Lists and categories are NOT mutually exclusive and lists can contain info categories can't. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Illbient as per T. Anthony. Several of the musicians listed don't really belong here anyway. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:06, 3 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. D e ath phoenix 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dot tax

This article is a blatant advertisement. -- Kjkolb 11:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, blatant advertisement, per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, blatant advertisement. Royboycrashfan 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - advertising (see WP:NOT). --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:23, 3 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. D e ath phoenix 14:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shameless plug

delete dicdef. Melaen 12:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Dicdef, maybe even Urban Dictionary. --light darkness 12:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 13:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. StarryEyes 16:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. How can one make an encyclopedia entry out of that? Royboycrashfan 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - dicdef. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:22, 3 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 redirect to Scooby-Doo. D e ath phoenix 14:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scooby

delete, neologism. Melaen 12:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, then create a Redirect to Scooby-Doo. Plausible search term. Youngamerican 14:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Scooby-Doo. Optichan 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete & redirect to Scooby-Doo. WP ≠ UD. StarryEyes 16:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect per above TMS63112 19:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Scooby-Doo per Youngamerican. Royboycrashfan 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete because it is useless. -- Bobman123 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect either to Scooby-Doo or to Scooby Gang. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Scooby-Doo, per above. BD2412 T 22:49, 2 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 00:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Delete. Another vanity page by Mikhail Tank, who's listed for deletion himself. KNewman 08:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

del vanity. --Ghirla | talk 12:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
delete per nom abakharev 12:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
delete vanity. mikka (t) 18:49, 3 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. Mailer Diablo 05:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decahedron (band)

Article fails WP:MUSIC (none of the notability criteria satisfied) and WP:V (MySpace is not considered a reliable source). Zunaid 12:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This article is filled with what would potentially be considered trivial and "unencyclopedic" detail. (It is not necessary to know the band's every move is it?). Were this to be removed the "encyclopedic" content would probably be speediable. I nominated this after about half an hour of digging through Wikipedia and Google. I have a concern that many (if not all) of the wikilinks in this article are to articles that themselves may be candidates for deletion. The entire structure of bands → artists who've played in them → other bands the artists have played in seems to be holding itself up by bootstrapping. I've chosen to nominate this one article to "test the waters" as it were (don't want to violate WP:POINT). However, if anyone else thinks it is justified, please include several of the other articles as well. Zunaid 12:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Nominator votes delete. Zunaid 12:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It's poorly written; contains unencyclopedic information and excessive wikification and vanity. Royboycrashfan 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, it's best to include your vote in the nomination. Royboycrashfan 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: A nomination to delete implies a delete vote. Stifle 23:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete "all information thus far taken from http://www.myspace.com/decahedron/" that really says it all. Bad ideas 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the myspace test. Stifle 23:46, 4 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 03:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Sight For Sore Pies

Delete: Searches prompted by the verify tag do not find any trace of this work in English. The article itself gives evidence for non-notability in Hindi Op. Deo 12:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unverifiable, most probaly hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Bad joke. StarryEyes 16:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Lockley 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:19, 3 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 dealt with as copyvio. W.marsh 03:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common Children

This defunct band doesn't satisfy WP:NMG, in my view. Even though they've a spot in allmusic.com, I'm not really "feeling" their legacy. [20] Article content is a copy vio too. PJM 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per copyvio and flagrant NPOV problems. This article needs to be nuked. That said, the band itself may be notable, so I could imagine maybe a good article being created in the future about them. Cyde Weys 06:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Send to copyvio team. Stifle 00:06, 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 speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G1, G3, A6, take your pick). howch e ng {chat} 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buling

I can find no additional references concerning this creature or the person cited for discovering the creature, Martin Buling. This article certainly looks legit; however, there are no references. I simply don't know if this is made up or not. As for me, I'd vote Delete unless References are cited, because I simply don't believe this article. James084 12:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

delete in the abscence of any references it feels like a hoax. Thryduulf 13:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Reads as a joke or hoax. "The Buling's existence is in controversy since there are only few amounts of material to support it actuality. The person who alledged to discover this creature is Marvin Buling, deriving it's name from his family name. Many believe that no such creatures exist and that the person who discovered it is often questioned for his sanity." Of course, allow re-creation without prejudice if accompanied by good, solid, verifiable source citations. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverified unless references are cited. NickelShoe 19:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per everyone. Royboycrashfan 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as attack page. The person who alledged to discover this creature is Marvin Buling, deriving it's name from his family name. Pilatus 19:37, 3 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 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ramsey

Unverifiable and unencyclopedic. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, speedy as nonsense? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, at best its a dicdef at worst its nonsense. I wouldn't object to a speedy although I'm not pressing the button myself. Thryduulf 13:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn neologism. -Jcbarr 14:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, As a Ramsey I am offended. This sounds like it is directed to a person. -nuttakorn 14:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - not encyclopaedic material. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:18, 3 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 and cleanup. D e ath phoenix 14:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Fink

Marked for speedy deleteion as an nn-bio but there is plenty of assertions of notability so it doesn't qualify. I haven't checked any of the claims so no vote. Thryduulf 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Rewrite I can't say for sure because the author uses an IP address rather than a username, but given the other contributions of this user (see Talk:Divje_Babe), I'm fairly confident that it is WP:AUTO. Additionally, I think that WP:NOT soapbox could be an issue due to the content of the Social Activism section of the article. Withdrawing my vote After reading the article's Talk page, I won't assume the subject is NN. I still have questions about whether this is WP:AUTO or at the very least an article submitted by a close acquaintance of the subject, which is what concerned me the most about this article. --Bugturd Talk 13:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Obvious Keep. "I'm pissed off at the author/subject of the article and don't care whether it meets the criteria for deletion" is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion; instead, it's arguably a WP:POINT violation. Monicasdude 15:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. There is a tendency on wikipedia to delete all controversial pages. Just because the neanderthal flute is not accepted as a flute by many others in the field does not mean Finks page should be deleted.--Rdos 18:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep but move current text to user page Definitely notable. But in the current form, a lot of it is a fairly close mirror of the Author's Background section at www.greenwych.ca. Talk at Talk:Bob Fink and Talk:Divje Babe makes it clear that this article is sourced by Bob Fink's publisher, if not Bob Fink himself [21], which makes it in breach of WP:VAIN and Wikipedia:Autobiography

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, and any other possible conflict of interest. Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales himself [22]. Refraining from such editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV-pushing).
I suggest therefore, that the current version should go to the Greenwych (talk • contribs) user page, and Bob Fink be edited down - by non-involved editors - to more encyclopedic form. Tearlach 12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If I recall, the autobiolgraphical policy is called a "soft" policy, whatever that means. I assume it means that the merits of the page (verifiable, notable, educationally informative) can trump the policy on occasion. Can you cite an example of that -- e.g. Wales? His edits and page remain, I think, no? The facts, docs and verifications I posted will read the same whether as publisher, I posted them with a biased relish or with bored aloofness. --Candace. I also quote "Largevelho" from the talk page:

--Lagarvelho 19:50, 2 February 2006)"I think this article should be kept in Wikipedia. Why? Fink may not be a "well-known" person, but he is well known among musicians and musicologists, and has done important work in the field of the origins of music. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his conclusions about this subject is another question, and whatever his political views, they are more or less irrelevant to his views on the earliest music and instruments."

"The facts, docs and verifications I posted will read the same whether as publisher, I posted them with a biased relish or with bored aloofness."

Whoever posted them, they need the same fact-checking. For instance, I have just removed to the Talk page a completely untrue claim that "Fink [in 1995] was among the first to write a computer program that could compose melodies by itself".

Really, Tearlach, you should try to quote in context. First of all, the key words in the quote which you claim is "completely untrue" are: "among the first" and "by itself." Also check the webpage announcing the program (which was nominated by Discover magazine for one of its contests in 1997 -- we have their letter). The webpage says: "This MAY be the world's first..." and further down, Fink mentions earlier programs than his that combined snippets from existing music, but that his program works from scratch, and Fink is then quoted: "I THINK I was AMONG the first to develop such a program," that writes melodies by itself. Taking all comments together hardly qualifies your claim it is "completely untrue. Are you looking for flaws and faults rather than making serious arguments? I hope not.

Oh, please, this is sheer sophistry. Computer generated music - including computer-generated melodies - predates Bob Fink's Serendipity by at least 20 years. Even with reservations like "may" and "think" and quibble about what "by itself" means, it's a bullshit claim. That you're trying to defend it is pretty good evidence of why this article needs independent editing. Tearlach 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
How come you get to add your B.S. after the decision was made to delete anyway and to not alter this page???? You're a little crooked, sonny. "Among" is a real word with real meaning. But your hostile misrepresentations already got you your way. It's deleted. Whatmore do you want -- the Last Word? Okay. -- Knock yourself out! I'll leave a space for you right below. Candace 65.255.225.34 04:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Use of space accepted because I've no idea what you mean. The article hasn't been deleted, and I never did vote for deletion: just copying the full version to the Greenwych (talk • contribs) user space, and editing the article space version to an independently written encyclopedic form. Tearlach 04:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I also quote "Largevelho" from the talk page
Note also that assessors of AfDs are generally alert to meatpuppets that appear as entirely new accounts that spring up to defend articles against deletion. Tearlach 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're implying that I organized the entry by Largevelho, that's a lie. You have no evidence for that nor can you have any. How credible would it be if I claimed without evidence that the person below voting "delete" (Douglas Smith) was some one you arranged to write in against me just because he is a "new" user? If you continue on this tack, Mr. Tearlach, make sure you format it in caps and italics and with plenty of space so it can be seen afar and thus carry more weight for your false accusations. Anyway, I've had enough of this. Say whatever you wish. Others know how to fact-check as well as you. Candace 65.255.225.34 01:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep This page should be kept. Whether or not the Divje Babe object is a flute, the article represents the point of view, not only of fink, but of a number of other experts. Perhaps it could be edited and joined with the viewpoints of those who think Divje Babe is not a flute, but it should most definitely be kept. Anne Gilbert - unsigned edit by new editor Lagarvelho (talk • contribs)
I am in complete agreement with Anne Gilbert. Robert Henvell, Australia. - unsigned edit by new editor Henvell (talk • contribs)
Delete The article is interesting and certainly not offensive, but it appears to be written by Mr. Fink himself for the purpose of promoting his ideas and his publications, and thus to fall into the vanity category. I have not read these publications and have no opinion on their validity, but I note that many appear to have been self-published (Greenwych or Greenwich Publishers). We therefore have no idea if they underwent any sort of critical peer review, as all scholarly materials in conventional journals and books do. There are references elsewhere in Wikipedia to some of Mr Fink's ideas, and links to his personal website. Douglas Smith - unsigned comment by new editor 71.141.121.176 (talk • contribs)

FYI: Fink was invited by Nature_journal to serve as a juror, for peer review, as an expert on ancient music. He was invited to write a rebuttal article in the peer-reviewed [proceedings] of a world archaeology conference Studies in Music Archaeology III, published in 2003. Another Fink article was published in the multi-lingual journal of the Study Group on Music Archaeology, Archaeologia Musicalis, 1988, also peer-reviewed, and also was cited in several articles in the MIT (Mass. Inst. of Technology) 2000 book Origins of Music; He also appears in Science magazine, Scientific American, and other peer-reviewed books, magazines and journals, in addition to Greenwich Publishers. See also book reviews -Candace 65.255.225.50 02:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and clean up. [23]. PJM 22:02, 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. -Splash^talk 00:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenni Heiden

Delete Almost nom'd for speedy delete as nn-bio, but this article has direct relation to several other articles contributed by the same group. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Order_of_Druids, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karayana_and_David_Dom, etc. Bugturd Talk 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Even if New_Order_of_Druids is found to be worth of inclusion, this person should not have her own article (and the information that she works there is already in New_Order_of_Druids). Kusma (討論) 14:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Kusma. Stifle 00:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --Kinu 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per reasoning in related AfDs. The group itself is new, unverifiable, and self-promoting. Once they achieve notability outside their own website/webring, we can (re)start the article on the New Order of Druids. Individual members are as yet unnotable and unverifiable, sorry. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:47, 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. D e ath phoenix 14:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] En Masse

Article about a band that altough doesn't seem notable itself has members from previous bands that may or may not be notable (they all need checking - I haven't done this). To my mind this means it deserves a hearing at AfD rather than being speedied (for which it was marked). No vote. Thryduulf 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as CSD:A7. I initially marked this as a speedy as the article itself is merely a list of band members' names. IMHO it is still speediable. Zunaid 13:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Please also take a look (and vote!) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decahedron (band) (further up this AfD page somewhere). These articles all form a wikilinked chain of band → band member(s) → other band(s) they've played in. The problem is very few (if any) of them seems to be notable per WP:MUSIC, and almost certainly some of them don't deserve their own article. I hesitate to nominate them all for deletion, and will see first how these two AfD debates go. Zunaid 13:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, but not a speedy because of its link to Jake Brown. However this band has no legs yet [24]as far as I can see. PJM 13:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep has previous members of notable bands in it. Jcuk 21:37, 2 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. D e ath phoenix 14:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teenage wildlife forum

Fails WP:WEB. Article about a web forum that does not cite external, verifiable third-party sources demonstrating its notability. Nominator votes delete. Zunaid 13:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 13:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)(changed vote to keep)
Keep - If such little-known items as Quislet and Jr. Gone Wild deserve Wikipedia pages, why not Teenage Wildlife? There are 805 hits on Google for "Jr. Gone Wild" and 15,900 for"'teenage wildlife' forum."
Keep - Teenage Wildlife is one of the largest and oldest music communities on the internet. Verifiable third-party sources that demonstrate its notability are now cited in the External links section. - Fegchanges 17:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Those 3rd party sources are listed under "Mentions of Teenage Wildlife in the online Bowie fandom". Online fandom does not IMHO demonstrate notability. What you have is an online fan forum being referenced by online fansites. Zunaid 12:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Teenage Wildlife at the Open Directory Project (DMOZ) not an online fansite —Fegchanges 14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  - SearchCeleb and Who2? are NOT "Bowie Fandom sites" but general information sites that both link to Teenage Wildlife as sources. —Fegchanges 15:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Metroactive Central A reference to its notability outside strict online fandom. —Fegchanges 15:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  - BBC Stuart Maconle's Critical List At the bottom of the page the BBC say 'Comprehensive fan site, with lyrics, pictures and discography' —Fegchanges 20:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Scan of The Complete David Bowie The cover of notable Bowie biography The Complete David Bowie - author Nicholas Pegg, showing a mention of Teenage Wildlife (www.teenagewildlife.com) —Fegchanges 01:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Scan from Strange Fascination - author David Buckley, showing a mention of Teenage Wildlife —Fegchanges 03:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Fegchanges - also, I see a lot of work has been put in to this article, it's over 1,800 words long. As there is some assertation of notability, it's a keep. If it were like 50 words long, then it may have been a delete; as there is actually something to say, let's say it. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 08:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - the website is noted in a number of notable Bowie biographies, including Nicholas Pegg's Complete David Bowie and David Buckley's Strange fascination.
Comment Article now has a section titled "notability", oh gosh, cleanup for sure! But well, I can't really go DEL NN anymore either then, can I? Kim Bruning 10:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I'd like to see people waiting to see what becomes of this article. Renaming it to the correct capitalisation and cleaning it up are in order, but it's got some potential, at least. Rob Church (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, see results 1-10 of 59 for "teenage wildlife forum" less specific searches yield false positives, as "Teenage Wildlife" is the name of a much more notable David Bowie song [25]. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:20, Feb. 6, 2006
- You should be voting based on the content of the article and the reliability of the third party sources/links, not on the amount of google hits. —Fegchanges 14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- You could also try googling "Teenage Wildlife messageboard" or "TW messageboard" or any other combination of "TW" forum" "messageboard" and so on. There's not a consistent way to refer to it, so you can't get an accurate Google count.
Weak Keep per our guidelines it passes since it has 12,587 Registered Users. ALKIVAR™ 12:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- The guidelines have been slightly reworded, but even on your point the old guideline said: A forum of 5,000 members that has had an impact beyond its own community. The second half of that sentence is what gets most forums here to AfD in the first place. Zunaid 12:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Full to the rafters with cruft, but that beside the point. The actual issue is verification. The Nicholas Pegg link doesn't mention this forum, an my mole-vision can't confirm anything from the tiny writing. Ditto with the David Buckley link. This doesn't mean that I don't believe, just that the evidence given doesn't allow me to easily decide. There's nothing else in the article like a reliable source. I am unable to discern from the above if the "keep" recomendations above are based upon the (possibly spurious) claims regarding the biography or if they've actually seen the printed works. I'd also note that the reason guidelines at WP:WEB now no longer mention number of registered users, since there is no way to tell if a website is reporting those facts (about itself) accurately. Always happy to have more information presented.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 13:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fegchanges has provided a link to a higher resolution scan of the book along with a note that the forum is mentioned explicitly on the cover. Sadly, I'm unable to access the link! But I see no reason to penalise this article for my firewall, nor any reason to doubt the good faith of this contributor. Changing to abstain. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - no mention outside of a few fan sites. Non-notable. —ERcheck @ 06:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- The following verifiable third-party sources are not fan sites -
1. Teenage Wildlife at the Open Directory Project (DMOZ) Teenage Wildlife is in 4 seperate catagories at DMOZ
2. Metroactive Central A reference to Teenage Wildlifes notability outside strict online fandom.
3. BBC Stuart Maconle's Critical List At the bottom of the page the BBC say 'Comprehensive fan site, with lyrics, pictures and discography'
4. SearchCeleb a general information site that links to Teenage Wildlife.
5. Who2? a general information site that links to Teenage Wildlife.
6. Scan of The Complete David Bowie The cover of notable Bowie biography The Complete David Bowie - author Nicholas Pegg, showing a mention of Teenage Wildlife (www.teenagewildlife.com)
7. Scan from Strange Fascination - author David Buckley, showing a mention of Teenage Wildlife
- —Fegchanges 20:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Widely known as a premier Bowie site based on the references here and elsewhere. Article needs to concentrate more on the site than the posters. -- JJay 01:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep The article has become massively crufted up with all the stuff needed to defend notability, hopefully some of that can be dialed back, or moved to the talk page or a subpage of it, once this article survives AfD as it should, because it IS notable. Multimedia events, mentions in books, quotes from the star, number of users and on and on and on... you'd have to be a spider from mars to want to delete this. ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 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 delete. W.marsh 03:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mesa para dos

Random film, no real notability. Geogre's law applies. Stifle 13:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As is, delete per nom.--Esprit15d 16:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:18, 3 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. D e ath phoenix 14:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infolab Enterprise Server

Delete. Not notable. 5 google hits Sleepyhead 13:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as more or less advertising for a non-notable corporation. —Cleared as filed. 05:30, 3 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 deleted by User:Markalexander100. - Mike Rosoft 19:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wurmpac

Delete. Non-notable website and possibly a vanity article. Dr Debug (Talk) 13:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. per nom--Esprit15d 14:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a non-notable organization (BBS clan?).-Colin Kimbrell 14:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, gaming clan! It becomes clear from the subpages...-Colin Kimbrell 14:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as not appropriate for an enclyclopedia. Kukini 14:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Blatant vanity. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion (group with no claim of note, useless article with no context). - Mike Rosoft 15:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. Articles about gaming clans should be deleted on sight. JIP | Talk 15:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:18, 3 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 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crystal quest manufacturing

Adspam for NN water filtration company, Alexa ranking of 460,062. Delete Kareeser|^Talk! 14:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, borderline speedy as no context. One-line substub. Stifle 00:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete ad spam. —Brim 00:38, 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 delete as nn-band -SCEhard T 17:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stompalistics

NN band. Google search brings up no significant hits, not a website to check for notability. The only "website" I could find was "geocities.com/stompalistics", which is an empty directory on the web. Delete Kareeser|^Talk! 14:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete {{nn-band}}. Stifle 00:08, 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 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commonware

Not notable. 355 google hits. Advertising. Sleepyhead 15:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete — Advertising template removed without discussion or substantial improvement of POV text. --Craig Stuntz 15:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 00:08, 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. Shanel 01:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto-Hamilton

This 'conurbation' is, to my knowledge neither an administrative unit of any kind nor a commonly-used name for the region. The two cities are separated by a good distance. There are several other urban areas between them (Oakville, Burlington etc.) and they are quite different in character. DJ Clayworth 18:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Redundant with Golden Horseshoe and Greater Toronto Area. About as useful as a New York City-Trenton article. StarryEyes 15:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Never heard usage of this word, and I live in Toronto. As with StarryEyes, Toronto and Hamilton are quite far apart, with two cities in between Kareeser|^Talk! 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per everyone. Royboycrashfan 17:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per everyone. --Ardenn 05:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Never heard of it, and I'm pretty sure I would have if it were real. Ground Zero | t 05:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
There's no officially or unofficially recognized metropolitan area corresponding to this term. The two terms in real use are Greater Toronto Area (which doesn't include Hamilton) and Golden Horseshoe (which does include the Hammer, but doesn't end there.) Hell, Toronto and Hamilton aren't even really considered a single media market, even though virtually all of the radio and television stations in both cities serve the whole region. So the term basically signifies nothing whatsoever...or at least nothing that isn't already covered more adequately by the GTA and Golden Horseshoe articles. Delete. Bearcat 05:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. For many of the reasons above. --Dogbreathcanada 07:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above, though I'd also support a redirect to Golden Horseshoe. 23skidoo 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:17, 3 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 03:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boulder Logic

Not notable. 4000 google hits. Advertising. Sleepyhead 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Let Yellowikis have it. Cyde Weys 06:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:16, 3 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 05:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanugrah

Article about what appears to be a personal website. Alexa has no ratings information and shows no sites linking to this site.[26] Delete unless reliable sources are provided to show this article meets the criteria for WP:WEB and WP:V. --Allen3 ^talk 15:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. per nom--Esprit15d 16:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ruby 07:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:08, 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 Already redirected to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. D e ath phoenix 14:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ENFP

Delete. I see no sense in description of Keirsey/MBTI types in wikipedia. --Gronau 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, as it was originally (11:50, 16 August 2003 Alfio m (#REDIRECT Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). Thryduulf 14:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What to do with the added informations? Reply to David Latapie 16:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove vote for deletion. There is really no reason, why those types should not have own articles. JKW 14:55, 6 May 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 05:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Illinois

The analogous lists for thirty-nine other states (plus List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges outside the US) were overwhelmingly deleted at this afd discussion. Illinois' list was afd'd separately and, inexplicably, survived. While Wikipedia is not consistent, treating Illinois differently really makes no sense. —Cryptic (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete per nominator. StarryEyes 15:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and previous discussion. Stifle 00:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above --kingboyk 06:19, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-mentoring

Recreation of a previously deleted article. Not sure whether to speedy because I can't recall what was in the article that was deleted. So I'm renominating it. Optichan 15:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is more extensive than the previously deleted version and has clearly been rewritten. The current version is therefore not eligable for speedy deletion. See also the first nomination. Thryduulf 16:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep but cleanup. The previous discussion (August) deleted it as a neologism, but with >21,000 Google hits from a large variety of websites (including at least one with a .gov domain) it looks to be a notable subject to me. Thryduulf 16:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep This article has been added to the task list for the recently launched WikiProject Alternative education. This is a legitimate subject, and has potential for a quality article. Thanks, Master Scott | Talk 16:40, 2 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. W.marsh 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weight Gain Fetishism

A hoax. "Weight Gain Fetishism" garners 43 Google results, all of them appearing to be Wikipedia mirrors. Sole contributor (aside from bots and vandalism reverts) is anon user. StarryEyes 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Fat fetishism. -Colin Kimbrell 17:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nomination. Royboycrashfan 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Feeder (fetish). God, I know too much about perversion. Night Gyr
Comment — There is also a lower-case "weight gain fetishism" that redirects to "inflation fetishism". Both probably should be redirected to the same location, if that is the choice. — RJH 15:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I'd be OK with either of the other proposed redirects as well. -Colin Kimbrell 04:37, 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 speedy delete - a Sin-full article. Allen3 - you do not need to bring nn-bios to AfD. -- RHaworth 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catherine Sin

Disputed A7 (non-notable indivudual) speedy deletion candidate. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources provided to show this individual meets WP:BIO. --Allen3 ^talk 15:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The talk page reads:

this is a page to write the biography of a form six hong kong student who has super-abilities 
to complete multiple tasks at hand and manage time efficiently. The page is primarily used to
promote the strong determination of this well-known student among the student community, so
others can learn from her example. the page will be soon updated with more information.

Wikipedia's purpose is not to promote individuals. I say delete this non-notable bio with great speed. --Optichan 15:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete There is no claim of notability except on the talk page where we learn that she is well known among her fellow students. --Bill 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Give me a break.--Esprit15d 16:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete with all possible speed, as there is no verifiable assertion of notability. Additionally, there is a failure to match the biographical guidelines (being well known amongst one's fellow students is a remarkably common achievement). Sliggy 16:35, 2 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. D e ath phoenix 14:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De Lemos Clan

Please RetainThe LaVoz article is not a 'press report.' It is an opinion from a guy who apparently does sceptical and contrarian editorials, and seemingly wants to argue with the Encyclopedia Britannica references on the town. This Wikipedia article discusses the clan, not the town: Except for peripheral comments it is not a 'delirious history' of the area as his editorial claims. Legendary or oral history matters are clearly marked, which the editorial implies are not; and give relevant context to how clan members approach problems. The rest is well referenced, speaks for itself, is not disputed in the editorial, and contradicts the editorial's implications.

Delete. Fake, fiction. Press report in galician/spanish newspaper: Historia delirante de Monforte Prevert^(talk) 15:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Stifle 00:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A hoax. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:45, 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. W.marsh 05:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akanbar

Non-notable, webcruft. Also spamming links. --Zeno McDohl 04:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, for reasons stated -Phorteetoo 07:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Stifle 00:08, 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. D e ath phoenix 14:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aleksandr Akulov

Delete. Self-promo. KNewman 11:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Very weak keep - an infant prodigy, who in his 15 performed at Carnegie Hall? - maybe worth an article (unless he performed together with 100 other students of music) abakharev 12:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. There is an increasing number of talented piano students who are getting articles on Wikipedia. I agree, playing in Carnegie Hall at the age of fifteen is a sign of a big talent, but he's nowhere near being notable. --Missmarple 15:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Missmarple. Stifle 00:17, 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 Delete (already archived properly now). D e ath phoenix 14:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle Andrew Brown/Archive2

Delete for violation of NPOV and verifiability guidelines. Tedd 03:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per huh?--Esprit15d 16:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Left the user a note on how to archive correctly.--Esprit15d 16:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete or userfy (if the author wants it there). Whatever else it is it isn't an encyclopaedia article Thryduulf 16:17, 2 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. D e ath phoenix 14:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of bumper sticker phrases

Not encyclopedic. The political content of some stickers could start PoV disputes by being listed. ZekeMacNeil 21:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

List was started because the phrases were being added to the original article (which in turn, by the way it was written seemed to below standard anyway) ad hoc in no particular order or emphasis.

Killing a list because of the "potential" of being a POV war suggests caution which in the end depends upon who join in on ths vfd i suppose. There is a possibility that there is another list somewhere that might be an alternative to this one for the phrases. Also it was originally very US-centric, making no allowance for the rest of the world : ) Maybe someone on uncyclopedia should hijack the contents to make a feature article there. SatuSuro 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Or should I say, "Si hoc legere scis, dele hanc pagina!" StarryEyes 17:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as simply unverifiable information. Maybe with some analysis and verifiability this would be an okay article. Cyde Weys 06:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Since we've got POD nowadays, can't a bumper sticker basically say anything? I think this is quite unmaintainable. delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete not meaningful, I disagree about POV, just because the article is about a POV, or POVs generally, doesn't mean the article about it is POV. -- if there were some entity that tracked sales of bumper stickers so we could say which ones were the biggest sellers you may have a keeper. But in the absence of someone else's original research, this ought to go. Carlossuarez46 23:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment - I have no problems with it being deleted, but note not one voter mentioned anything about a similar list in the system that has to deal with a set of phrases like these, and how it has been done.SatuSuro 11:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete, this appears to be a list, although admittedly an amusing one, created just for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 00:18, 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. D e ath phoenix 14:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Plaut

Delete. Being featured on the news once or twice and having a blog does not constitute notability. Rory096 17:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. A blogger who gets interviewed on television, and has multiple news articles done about her (carried internationally, both print and internet), and makes the front page of Yahoo! news is more notable than some of the Pokemon characters who have articles at your site; especially considering she had 800 daily visitors, before being interviewed. How many bloggers does the AP interview each year? I bet its a short list. Qasdd

Note: Qasdd has been blocked by Raul654 as a sockpuppet of banned user Lir. See block log. --Teh Puppet 06:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I believe that having a Wikipedia entry could be beneficial for those who might have seen some of the recent publicity and who would like more information about the blogger. The article as it stands now doesn't contain very much information, but as others find the entry they can add more. The subject of the article has been told about the existence of this article, and she may very well have something to add to it. If there turns out to not be a need for this article, and no new information has been added for some time, then the article can always be deleted later. What does it hurt to keep it at this point, and just find out if there is a demand for it? Rainnede 18:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above keep votes. The arguments for keeping the article seem more convincing than the argument to delete. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiable reports in media means she meets WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep surely notable as one of the few female cab drivers in New York RatherConfused 11:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep although it needs attention. And although having a blog per se does not automatically connote notability, the fact that said blog - 1) is featured in AP, Yahoo News and Gawker 2) deals with a unique subject matter (life of a female new york taxi driver) 3) has received a lot of positive feedback from people in geographically diverse locations like New York, Texas, UK, Australia - means that it is notable.
Delete. Blogs, even popular blogs, have a tough hurdle to pass to claim notability because anyone can set one up and advertise one, and fleeting media interest isn't enough to assert lasting notability. —Cleared as filed. 19:17, 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. W.marsh 06:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammed Salman Hamdani

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep - at first I expected this to be just another memorial article, but if he truly is mentioned in the US Patriot Act then that is truly notable. Thryduulf 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
~~Regretfully Delete - Name not found in search of text of Act.~~ -- Op. Deo 16:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC). Sorry - bad search. It is there as quoted Op. Deo 16:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep is mentioned by name in the US Patriot Act as quoted. Sliggy 16:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If he is such a big shot for being mentioned in the US Patriot Act than redirect the page to the US Patriot Act. 69.218.181.192 19:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above reasons. --Rob 20:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I wasn't even aware that they mentioned people by name in laws. Definitely notable for that reason alone. Then again, wasn't there an act that specifically mentioned Schiavo that Bush came back from vacation to sign? Heh. Cyde Weys 06:07, 3 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. D e ath phoenix 15:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monetary, tax and capital budget reform

Delete POV nonsense.--Mais oui! 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipdia is not a soapbox - delete. Thryduulf 16:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a bit of a mess, appears to be original research. Stifle 00:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Stifle. Harvestdancer 18:00, 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. D e ath phoenix 15:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Otodus obliquus

Ran into this one on random viewing. It has almost no content, and what is there is bad links. If you play with the heads of the links, you can get to a Web page selling fossils - so it seems like an advertisement - badly done. There is one messed-up link to a Google page for searching for images too. Carrionluggage 06:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete (attempted) advertising. Thryduulf 16:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as weird random content. Stifle 00:23, 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, discounting socks. D e ath phoenix 15:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution Media

Delete This page serves no other purpuse than to provide a SEO-firm with a backlink from Wikipedia. Synlighet 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
delete advertising. Thryduulf 16:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete simple advertising.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep.The article doesn't need to be deleted, just expanded to include more information relevant to this particular company. It's definitely not an advertisement, as it's in NPOV, is verifiable and contains some original research. It just doesn't contain enough original research. I added this page to give people some information about one of Omnicom Group's companies, and that is all it does. It does not "[emphasize] desirable qualities so as to arouse a desire to buy or patronize", as is the definition of advertising. It only gives information on a company, like hundreds of other company stubs and company pages on Wikipedia. This page is no more advertising for Resolution Media than those pages are for those companies, and does not violate any of Wikipedia's rules. It should be kept.

--Blackbryson 20:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. "information relevant" is from PR Newswire, notoriously open to putting anything remotely worded as a press release up on a website. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Blackbryson
Keep.. This is an impartial company stub with press releases/articles from a couple of ("notoriously") credible news sources.

--Z-Money 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep.. agree with Z-Money, no reason for deletion.--BJCap33 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep looks fact based to me.-CJ

Delete according to the current guidelines--Eplekake 01:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Appears to be referenced often enough in its trade press to qualify as notable. It's not like Omnicom is fool enough to try to market its business services to Wikipedia editors. Monicasdude 03:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertising. —Cleared as filed. 05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. *drew 06:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and obvious vote-stacking attempts. Closing admin, ignore all suspicious Keep votes. --Cyde Weys 06:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- I should be fascinated to know exactly what criteria define a "suspicious" vote (and why only Keep votes are "suspicious". However I suspect that thr answer is simple :: it's an y vote that goes against what the cabal have already decided will happen. Convenient, that. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

- - I guess you could suspect something when you look at the history, oner use has "voted" several times and a number of users has "voted" almost at the same time, but keep in mind that this is not a vote. Unless someone can provide a strong justifiaction for the article it must be deleted, as it is now is is not up to wikipedia-standards. --129.240.71.123 10:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    - There are a lot anon, single-article voters here, but they're on both sides; the original nominator's only other activity was a spurious AfD nomination (w/some semi-related talk). This anon is another example -- no other editing activity, just a citation of a non-existent "not up to standards" criterion for deletion and a made-up claim that some special "justifiaction" is needed. Monicasdude 11:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and apparent meat/sockpuppetry. Stifle 00:24, 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 No consensus. D e ath phoenix 15:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Search Engine Watch

This stub is about one of many SEO-related websites. It would seem like the only reason for this article is to provide the web site with two links from Wikipedia. --Synlighet 22:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable. Alexa rank 973. Mark as stub if you like. --Craig Stuntz 17:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As much as I dislike ~~snake oil salesmen~~ SEO consultants, this is easily one of the top three sites on the topic, arguably the top site. Definitely notable. Keep. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Alexa Rank means it meets WP:WEB. Google News shows over 400 hits (mostly because it is a source) including references to the San Francisco Chronicle and Nightline. Capitalistroadster 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Alexa rank alone do not justify an article. Most hits on Google news are from searchenginewatch or SEO-related blogs, and can't be justifed as a reason to keep the article. We could be facing a lot of equally notable stubs about other SEO-related web sites if we keep this one. Delete

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. – ABCD ^e✉ 23:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George deskas

Delete unverifiable. 47 google hits, all of which are from his picture gallery Bill 16:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - A7 (non-notable bio)--Hurricane111 16:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. Punkmorten 17:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity page.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 17:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Vanity. nn --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - vanity. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:16, 3 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 Merge and redirect to Eragon. D e ath phoenix 15:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nasuada

Minor character from the Eragon series. Should be deleted and whatever useful information be merged there. Esprit15d 16:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. GFDL requirements don't let you delete and merge. If this information is merged someplace, the redirect has to remain so the original article history is available. —Cleared as filed. 05:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Eragon. Stifle 00:24, 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 redirect. W.marsh 05:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poogly

Author claims term refers to something that is cute in the ugly way. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Hurricane111 16:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

redirect to Nadsat lexicon. Kappa 16:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
redirect to Nadsat lexicon. Punkmorten 17:09, 2 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 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan H. Miller

Not notable. Basically a failed politician. Esprit15d 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*Delete "...unsuccessful candidate...lost election..." This doesn't add up to a notable political biography, so it should be deleted as per WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 18:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Verification mentioned below sufficient for a change of vote. Can this information be included in the article & make it more useful for a researcher? (aeropagitica) 23:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep former state legislator. Per WP:BIO members of "national state and provincial legislatures" are notable. Needs to be wikified, cleaned up, expnaded, sources cited. Does not need to be deleted. TMS63112 19:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment the only google hit I get for him is his wikipedia entry.....Jcuk 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- He was in public life in the 1970's and 1980's so its not especially surprising he doesn't show up in Google. TMS63112 21:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless verified. If so, then keep it because a state senator cuts the mustard for me. Lord Bob 21:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Vote changed to keep per below.
- Biography from Virginia House of Delegates [27] and speech Ronald Reagan gave supporting him and his running mate for Lt. Gov in 1981 [28]. Sufficient verification? TMS63112 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Perfectly. I have changed my vote. Lord Bob 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. As a former legislator, he meets WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 01:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Passes WP:BIO since he's a state legislator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 3 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. D e ath phoenix 15:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern realty

Delete: - Advert. Kukini 16:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete The author makes no claim of notability--Bill 16:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete does not fit criteria of WP:CORP Mr. Know-It-All 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - advertising. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above Melchoir 04:08, 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. D e ath phoenix 15:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stravinskiism

Delete No google hits. Bill 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Shoehorn 17:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Because "Though in mainstream culture, he has not received almost any recognition, he has become rather influential within certain social circles among the priveledged Suburban teens of Massachusetts." Ruby 07:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, as explained by Ruby above. Pavel Vozenilek 22:33, 4 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. D e ath phoenix 15:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simpul Spel

delete as original research.--M @r ē ino 17:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Craig Stuntz 17:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a testbook example of when an article should be userfied. Youngamerican 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What should i do so it doesn't get deleted? Cameron Nedland 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:15, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rennets

Cute, but a hoax presented as fact. Mattdm 17:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

'Delete - Hoax. Thryduulf 17:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Craig Stuntz 17:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
'Delete - amusing, but hoax.--JBellis 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as misspelling/plural to rennet, an unrelated, factual article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Now redirected. Gdr 14:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete (redirect has been un-redirected). Redirect leaves the hoax open to revival. Mark^{your words} 14:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- If this is deleted, I will make a redirect and lock it. Let's let this run the full week, though, so there's a proper AFD to point to when it comes time to delete/prevent this hoax in the future. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE As i have said numerous times- Rennet is a media term- the creature it describes, Cricetus auratus, are real creatures, They are not Friggin Syrian hamsters like everyone thinks, thats Mesocricetus auratus!!! Look it up before you delete my article!!!!Devil in disguise 14:57, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Americans (ethnic group)

delete as inherently misleading and original research. This article has more tags than a department store sale: 2 merges, 2 cleanups, 2 warnings, and 1 no-sources. They will not go away anytime soon b/c Americans are not an ethnic group. I should also point out that this is the second (and last) article by User:Cameron Nedland that I've nominated. I do not think that he is a vandal -- his edits on other pages are generally quite good.--M @r ē ino 17:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. StarryEyes 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Craig Stuntz 17:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, but consider BJAODN for impressive tag collection. bikeable (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It has to be some kind of record. youngamerican (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment: I've seen slightly more, but there are more problems than there may seem with this article. Stifle 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Bhumiya 19:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete User:Jonathan235
Delete per above. Kusonaga 20:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Jcuk 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as current redirect Saswann 15:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'm not thrilled with the current redirect, either. youngamerican (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete the re-direct I guess someone already re-directed it and deleted all the content that everyone was voting on. The re-direct should be deleted as well: it's misleading and arguably racist: why are Americans always limited to Native Americans and/or United States of Americans, etc? And I'm not sure that all Native Americans consider themselves of one grand ethnic group, especially the Na-Dene. Carlossuarez46 23:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Adammathias (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) changed this to a redirect. I've reverted the change pending this AFD. No vote. Stifle 00:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Does not conform with ethnic group criteria as Americans are not an ethnic group.Tombseye 21:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 12 Daily Pro

Spam, but I'm AFD'ing instead of speedying in case anyone can rescue this. 23skidoo 04:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete (speedy) spamvertising of the most shameless kind. Chris the speller 04:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete (speedy) as above.--Bkwillwm 18:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete oh yeah, spam for sure.--MONGO 02:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete copy-pasted advert. Not a speedy, we don't appear to have a category for these (yet). Stifle 00:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete could possibly become a worthwile article but as written it is shameless advertising and the topic doesn't seem too notable. If someone rewrites it seriously, i'll probably change my vote. Cool3 00:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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 (speedy deletion criterion G4). howch e ng {chat} 18:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 12 Daily Pro

It's back, blatant marketing spam Wyss 17:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy please... Wyss 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you guys realize there is another page at 12DailyPro? Merge it first, then consider deleting the entire thing. Meandmyself 17:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore there isn't. howch e ng {chat} 18:57, 2 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools in Thailand

Apart from being redundant since categories already exist, this list will never be complete, and gives a false impression of noted Thai schools. Paul C 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Not redundant as it contains a red link. Can be annotated. Can be organised differently from the category. Expand and make any comments you think are necessary for context. Merchbow 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Merchbow. Kusonaga 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above Jcuk 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in China -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- That was speedy deleted for containing just one entry which has no bearing on this particular list. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep categories do NOT make lists obsolete as lists can be organized in several ways while categories are always alphabetical. Lists can be annotated, categories can't. Lists and categories serve similar, but different functions. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Mgm. Kappa 22:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The China discussion (which I voted to delete) is of little relevance here. Silensor 22:40, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -ase

Is a dictionary definition Meandmyself 17:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Any argument that applies to -ase should apply equally to -ane, -ene, -oic acid, -ol, -one, -yl, and -yne. (See Category:Chemical nomenclature) --M @r ē ino 17:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Useful chemistry content. bikeable (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, or else we'll have to delete these. Bhumiya 19:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Bhumiya Jcuk 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, fatten up. BD2412 T 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand per precedent from the category cited by Mareino. I'm a layman, and -ase is the bio-chem suffix I know best, except maybe -ose. If not expanded to show how important this is in biochemistry, then maybe just make it a redirect to Enzyme, as it's a quite plausible search term. Is a leading hyphen considered inappropriate for an article-space title? I note that it was a working article link. Barno 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to their appropriate chemical articles. -ane to alkane, -ol to alcohol, etc. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- E.g. if I redirect -ane to alkane, the information about what "-ane" means will be buried among a mass of other matter, since it is impossible to make a redirect go to a specific paragraph. Anthony Appleyard 07:41, 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. Shanel 01:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Kwon

Delete. Spam? Vanity? Not notable. Bad article not worth editing. Shoehorn 17:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. The article is not that badly written, but just being an e-mail spammer does not make a person encyclopedically significant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Let's no encourage spammers. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Unless you go to jail and then get your conviction overturned by the SCOTUS, neither you nor your misdeeds are not worthy of a Wikipedia entry. --Kinu 08:13, 4 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 easy non-notable bio. —Cleared as filed. 05:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baggas

Delete as IMO it is a vanity article Slj 17:46, 2 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. Babajobu 09:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deathproj

An unfinished experimental film -- work began in 2001. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bryce Beverlin II. Although it doesn't say so on this page, on Bryce Beverlin II it claims that parts of the film were staged/shown at a small gallery in Minneapolis. There is no explicit set of notability criteria for film, but in an analogy with WP:MUSIC, this wouldn't come close. Delete. bikeable (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Maybe it will be notable when it's finished, but not now. Edgar181 19:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above --kingboyk 19:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable vanity. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable experimental film. --Hurricane111 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
In the absence of verifiable notability, delete Guy Hatton 07:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
what else should be brought about in order to verify notability?--Kylefresh 23:06, 3 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Peters

Was tagged for speedy deletion by ~~Hansnesse~~ an anon user as nn-bio, but he doesn't think it should be speedied himself. Copying comments from talk page below. howch e ng {chat} 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Henry Peters: I have not researched the guy to check verifiability I should think 17th century explorers, who discovered major finds, etc. are notable. If this is to be deleted, it should be via AfD process I should think. I'm checking verifiability to ensure not a hoax, but definitely not speedy material. --Hansnesse 02:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Increasingly, this article is looking suspicious. The Temple of Castor and Pollux seems to be in Rome, not Sicily. Moreover, it seems strange that an explorer would "discover" it so late in history. I could find no reference to "Henry Peters" in any database I checked. I withdraw my objection to deletion, although suggest it would be better as an AfD, in case I missed something. I will add a hoax tag as well. --Hansnesse 02:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment I did not tag for speedy deletion. That was done by the anon ip 82.54.167.161 (contribs), see this edit. I was investigating the article when it was tagged for speedy and wanted to figure out what was going on before deletion. I put on the hangon tag and think this is the appropriate place. I am open to further investigation revealing this guy is real, but I don't see it. --Hansnesse 18:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment User:86.128.100.73 (contribs) just posted a reference to "The Concise Dictionary of 16th Century Archaeologists (1852)." This book is not mentioned in OLCL (a worldwide catalogue of books), the US Library of Congress, Google or Google Scholar, Historical Abstracts (a subscription service), or Oxford University Library. It is impossible to rule out that this book exists, of course, but if this is the only source for verifiability, I think it is safe to say it is unverifiable. Particularly since the book (if it is indeed the source) got the location of the Temple of Castor and Pollux wrong, it would seem to be unreliable. --Hansnesse 01:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unless someone produces strong evidence it is not a hoax. Merchbow 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Un sourced, and very unlikely to be anything other than a hoax or WP:NFT. Obina 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:12, 3 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. Babajobu 09:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Badger

Was tagged for speedy deletion by RHaworth as nn-bio, but being "one of the world's leading experts in the field of grinding and abrasives" seems like a claim to notability for me. Keep it! Bringing it to AfD instead. howch e ng {chat} 18:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of anything that meets any of the criteria for notability. The only publication mentioned seems to be self-pubbed, doubt he sold 5,000 of them. JulesH 18:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete appears to be an advert, unverifiable for the time being. Stifle 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

keep - One of the world's leading experts, trademarked logo, known as "The Grinding Doc", has publication record. Needs to stay. See other experts in Wikipedia.

Keep. The guy has a cool name. What more can you ask for? lmno 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - bogus credentials. Following Google links leads to vanity pages and free e-mail addresses, not a characteristic of a genuine 'world expert' on anything. JanesDaddy 18:02, 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. Babajobu 09:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carcasting

Another word someone made up. 28 unique hits on google, only one that has the same meaning is on some guy's blog. - Bobet 18:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Shoehorn 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Bobet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not encyclopaedic. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:12, 3 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. bainer (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toolstation

Delete: article about non-notable company, just seems to be an advert JulesH 18:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete: same reason Too Old 02:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Stifle 00:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:CORP. --bainer (talk) 04:25, 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 delete. bainer (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noah Baarde

A "fictional footballer" created yesterday, explicitly as a joke....Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 18:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Obvious delete TMS63112 19:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Shoehorn 19:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not encyclopaedic. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:BALLS. Stifle 00:33, 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. Shanel 01:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of war heroes

Was tagged for speedy deletion by CHawke as a repost of List of people known as war heroes (AfD discussion) but it's not the same. Probert notes in the edit history that the creator, Swedenman is a known troll on Swedish Wikipedia. Regardless, it's an inherently POV list that's unreferenced. howch e ng {chat} 18:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Speculative and POV. No guidelines. Theoretically you can say Hitler is a war hero --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment this list would seem to have a lot in common with Hero#People_traditionally_recognized_as_heroes Jcuk 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, inherently POV. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, POV no single definition of "hero" can be applied that meets NPOV --C Hawke 07:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Probert 11:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (Yes, Swedenman is a troll. He is identical with Filipman on Swedish Wikipedia. He has been blocked 6 times [29] for rabid edit wars and abuse of other wikipedians.)
Delete - POV by definition. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete another speculative list; even if some agreed-upon source decided to name its top 100 war heroes, we ought to delete that as well, per all the lists of "best songs", "most annoying songs", "worst dictators" floating around the AfD pages. Carlossuarez46 23:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete... completely POV, among other things. --Kinu 08:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I would add that having lexicographically sorted list of names for several millenia is not very useful. Pavel Vozenilek 22:31, 4 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. D e ath phoenix 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doutzen Kroes

A) trivial B) just plain bad

Out, dambed spot!

Maury 12:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Supermodel articles should at least provide eye candy along with the text! Ruby 16:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, trivial bio. Stifle 19:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep: just rewrote the article. Calwatch 06:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Canderson7 ^(talk) 18:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep I thought supermodels were notable in their field. Hence "Super"model. Jcuk 20:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep grounds for notablity are now clear in this rewrite.Obina 21:07, 2 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. bainer (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metal elitists

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Marinus with the reason, "Unnecessary article - exists solely for the starter to link to from his user page," which is not a speedy criterion. Bringing it to AfD instead. howch e ng {chat} 19:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If verifiable merge with Heavy Metal, if not, delete. Jcuk 20:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete; not a widely used term as far as I can tell. PJM 20:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge. Not notable enough to be on its own. Kusonaga 21:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete There may be other reasons, but as written this is a dic def and WP:NOT a dictionary.Obina 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above - Deathrocker 19:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as dicdef. --bainer (talk) 04:17, 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 delete. Babajobu 09:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GandhiCon

This alleged hacker phrase seems to be unused by virtually everyone except Eric Raymond, who maintains the Jargon File that most of the Wikipedia article was adapted from. Eric has been criticized before for putting this entry in the Jargon File, on the same grounds. See Talk:GandhiCon for details--I did a Google and it appears that the uses of the term are very few. Ken Arromdee 19:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not about to help ESR push his idea of 'teh funnay'. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 20:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, searches don't show even a bunch of "ESR's GandhiCon joke and subsequent explanation entertained the crowd at such-and-such banquet." Nobody but Raymond has used it in ways showing verifiable widespread influence. Just because he put his stuff in the Jargon File doesn't make it encyclopedically notable. Barno 00:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:07, 3 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 by Zzyzx11 as a test page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bergen - Mod 251 - Group 4

A group blog MNewnham 19:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete test page.--Adam ^(talk) 19:48, 2 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 userfy to Dclobbyist. Blatant advert / vanity. -- RHaworth 20:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The C. L. A. Group, LLC

Delete. Advertisement for business. Monkeyman 19:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedied by RHaworth Monkeyman 20:20, 2 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xmanager

Delete as WP:SPAM. Article is copy and pasted from the website selling Xmanager. --Bugturd Talk 19:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per WP:CP. Article was created today. I have tagged it--Adam ^(talk) 20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:07, 3 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. Babajobu 08:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Health Wikispace

Deleted once already but this version is substantially different and therefore does not qualify under CSD G4. However, I submit that this web site, having just opened on January 17, 2006, fails WP:WEB. See first discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health Wikispace. howch e ng {chat} 20:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Knowing how the Wikipedia works, I'm not sure I would want to let actual sick people use a wiki as a first or second opinion Ruby 07:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:34, 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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gorilla Press Slam

Delete article about one wrestler's coup-de-grace (I think) Ruby 20:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete everything you need to know about this move you can find on warriors page anyhow. (OMG am I becoming a deletionist!?) *grin* Jcuk 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge into the appropriate pro wrestling move list of. Youngamerican 20:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Redirect to List of professional wrestling throws, where it is already mentioned. Past precedent, such as with Rock Bottom, have indicated that this is the most appropriate action, especially since someone might actually search for gorilla press slam. Youngamerican 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Here is the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Bottom, the page is now a dab, since there are more than one thing called a Rock Bottom, but I doubt there are any other things called a Gorilla Press Slam. Youngamerican 21:06, 2 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 08:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Mennen Co.

Non-notable toiletries company absorbed by Colgate over a decade ago.

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep needs clean up. Mennen is a notable brand, and we have pages for many similar brands. This is a useful stub to start from - better than starting from blank as there is some history here like location. I think we should rename to Mennen, but I think this is unhelpful during the Afd.Obina 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Obina. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Products available internationally - certainly they are available in Australia. Needs expansion and cleanup. Rename to Mennen. Capitalistroadster 01:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, delete, delete, delete. If it's not a current business, it can't be notable no matter what it did in the past. Delete all dead people, too. Delete all TV shows that aren't the air any more, all out-of-print books and records, and any magazines and newspapers that have stopped publishing, especially those that dead people wrote for. Delete anybody who's retired from whatever activity made them notable. Monicasdude 06:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Colgate. Stifle 00:34, 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 redirect. Babajobu 08:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cnupedia

Not notable wiki. Redirect? feydey 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect or Merge if there is anything deemed worthy of merging, although it doesn't really look like what's in the article is even noteable enough for mention in the main article. NoIdeaNick 22:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Christopher Newport University Ruby 07:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing worth merging. – ABCD ^e✉ 02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I created the page because the local school newspaper made an error and listed as our site being hosted on Wikipedia. I wanted people searching for the site directed to here because of the error to still be able to find it.

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 (speedy deletion criterion G3, vandalism). howch e ng {chat} 22:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footy Chicks

Non-notable [30]. - Liberatore(T) 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Advertising - and of a rather objectionable type exploitation of the active female consumer Dlyons493 Talk 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. Also WP:NOT for advertising, and i judge this sounds like it <<....It is a great time to become part of this new advertising initiative with Footy Chicks...>>. Obina 20:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment apart from substituting the words "Footy Chicks" for "Lingerie League" its a direct copy of an entry on this blog. [31] Jcuk 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as teeth-grindingly annoying advertising and marketing gloss. If it can be speedied under A8 that would be even better. Sliggy 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable. Advert. Kusonaga 20:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
delete advertising, also a possible copyvio from http://www.lingerieleague.blogspot.com/. Sinmce this was likely posted by the same person who wrote that, it isn't really a problem -- but the article itself has a copyright notice at the moment. ARRGH! DES ^(talk) 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Advertising, as per nom. (aeropagitica) 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete advertisment, unnotable, text was marked as copyrighted. --Jan Smolik 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy. There is nothing in the text that asserts notability. There is also the small matter of the copyvio. Capitalistroadster 01:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)"

Delete. Non-notable, and non-encyclopedic. Cnwb 03:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete since it doesn't even tell me what it's supposed to be, let alone establish notability. Is this vanispamcruftisement or something? Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:19, 3 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 01:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rho Sigma, est. 1935

A fraternity which is unique to one college, non-notable in my opinion. This isn't Skull and Bones. Rmhermen 20:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, local Greek organizations are non-notable as per precedent. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 20:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Cleanup article. I'm against any fraternity that has an article for an individual chapter, but that mainly applies to national fraternities. Local fraternities fall in a gray area. Some are notable, some are not. There are several local fraternities that have an article on Wiki already (e.g. The William Penn Society and Phi Tau) so there actually is precedent. I'd like to see where this is article is headed. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 05:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete to help make a precedent, simply because we are otherwise likely to have billions of articles on non-notable fraternities on WP otherwise. Stifle 00:35, 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 deleted by Starblind as an attack page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ellery Queer

Delete. Non-verifiable and probable joke / hoax; no Google hits substantiate this 'slang'. Lockley 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, A6. Tagged. PJM 20:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedied as an attack page so lame that even Beavis and Butt-head would find it beneath them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:52, 2 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. Ifnord 20:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prooftext

Looks like an unsourced original research/neologism/pov fork. Uncategorized, and with nothing meaningful linking to it. Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 20:15, Feb. 2, 2006

Keep, a Google search pulls up 27,000+ hits, which all appear to use it as the article explains. Apparently a real, if new, feature of evangelical Christian apologetics.--ThreeAnswers 20:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep I've been a Christian 20+ years, and its been happening as long as I remember Jcuk 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Clean and Keep Prooftexting seems legit, but the article needs some citations. --Bugturd Talk 20:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and clean up. It could use several more examples and needs to be more balanced in order to preserve NPOV. Logophile 11:16, 3 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. Shanel 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Llanllyfucocnoeth

Hoax. Despite the plausible map link, this is the fictional home of Dr Gwion Larsen who contributes to this bulletin board. Could transwiki to the Welsh wiki for their BJAODN. -- RHaworth 20:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nom. Not on multimap etc. -- Op. Deo 21:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. "llyfucocnoeth" in Welsh means "lickanakedcock" by the way.; Rhion 12:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, delete, delete. A joke. Gareth 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - joke. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete not even funny --MacRusgail 13:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. Mangojuice 22:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. Vashti 08:12, 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. W.marsh 01:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psycho Rambling

Non-notable and silly. Googling forthe term shows only its use as a name for a style of writing. Malcolm Farmer 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above.--Adam ^(talk) 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as it appears to be a neologism and, as the article stands, Non-notable. Should it be desired this article stay, I would suggest more information on this "extreme sport's" history. Sethimothy 13:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with that statement malcolm. Psycho rambling is something that i have been doing with my Venture Scouts for some years now. The older ones (over 18) are the only ones i allow to do it without permission, but myself, i enjoy it thouroughly. It is running down a hill with a rucksack. Not a type of writing. Maybe its just not well known across the water in old Yankee land. Matt Goodwin 13:25 February 3rd 2006

Delete, nn neo. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 15:45, 3 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 01:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Susan_lindner

Delete as nn-bio and thinly veiled advertisement for her PR firm Bugturd Talk 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Advertisement - closer to blatant than thinly-disguised IMHO Dlyons493 Talk 01:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Obvious Keep. Founder of notable business, writes for Consumer Reports website, etc. Why do so many editors believe that business/industrial firms/individuals should be deleted, but respond with enthusiasm to 50K articles about individual Pokeman cards? Monicasdude 06:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless the title is corrected, the blatant advertisement is removed, and some information about the subject is added. (wasn't logged in before) Logophile 11:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ardenn 20:07, 3 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 01:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mauso

Delete - looks like a private joke JBellis 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

delete WP:BALLS, amusing picture though MNewnham 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:Complete_Bollocks. Agree about the picture, though. (aeropagitica) 21:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - silly. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:05, 3 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 01:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insides Music

vanity article about a nn indy record company, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bryce_Beverlin_II for more info. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

tough one, because an online-only indie "label" would not meet WP:MUSIC, but could conceivably be notable and musically important. However, this particular one has few google hist, and its most prominent release is a series of prank phone calls, so... delete. bikeable (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Bikeable. --Hurricane111 05:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
In the absence of verifiable notability (at least to date), delete Guy Hatton 07:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity/advertisement. Postdlf 01:49, 4 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. DES ^(talk) 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Like Girls

Group does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Band vanity. Mr Bound 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete , A7. A long-winded, right-off-the-turnip-truck entry which asserts zero notability. Tagged. PJM 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - Just plain ol' band vanity indeed. Kusonaga 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Apologies, didn't know there was a tag for this now in speedy. Mr Bound 21:11, 2 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. It's easy, it's painless, and you don't have to be an admin to do it! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virus of the Brain

The name of this movie is in fact Victim of the Brain. See Talk:Victim_of_the_Brain for further details. zed 20:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Just redirect the thing, then. It doesn't require AfD, it's quick, and it's painless. Lord Bob 21:43, 2 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 01:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobo Records

Vanity page, artist will sell 7 million records in 2006, even though label has no distribution deal MNewnham 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How can you possibly delete somebody who's one of the top US? I didn't even know there were a lot of United Stateses to be one of the top of, unless he meant the letter 'u'...anyway, delete, not a speedy but not notable either. Lord Bob 21:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Because always in motion, the future, "which will sell over seven million copies and produce two number one singles slated to be released in 2006" Ruby 08:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:02, 3 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. Shanel 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purple dwarf

From google [32], I don't believe this is an established category of star. Might be an established type of lily however. Kappa

Delete nonsense as written, and the lily seems to be just an individual variety, not a species, and not particualrly notable -- if it is, this article will in no way help write about the lily anyway. DES ^(talk) 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete there is no such thing as a purple dwarf star.--Adam ^(talk) 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A Pink elephant on the other hand... PJM 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Or if Rimmer adds blue paint to the Red Dwarf.Obina 22:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete The only purple dwarf I can find is the plant as well. Delete to prevent Green Dwarfs which we cannot see. Dr Debug (Talk) 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Um it looks like we might be too late to prevent Green dwarfs, but luckily there's a book. Kappa 22:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Georgewilliamherbert 03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it- patent nonsense. Mark ^{your words} 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

- The deletion is not supposed to happen until the debate is finished. 64.194.44.220 03:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This debate is finished. It's Deceased. It's passed beyond the Event horizon. It's pushing up Daisys.

This is an Ex-Debate.

Georgewilliamherbert 03:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, seems like a bit of rubbish. The article was speedy deleted by Markalexander100 as patent nonsense, although appears to have since been recreated. I don't think it meets the speedy criteria on this revision. Stifle 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, if we must go through the charade. Mark ^{your words} 11:41, 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 delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howch e ng {chat} 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain overreact

nn local band Adam ^(talk) 21:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete repost of speedy deleted article --Bill 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. DES ^(talk) 21:17, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The adventures of Leah Chase

This seems to be a hoax. i can find no relevant mention on Google. (Note if you try this, you will have to filter out the many hits on Leah Chase the notable chef.) No sourcxes are cited, there is no IMDB reference. Delete unless sources are cited that establsh teh accuracy and notability of this topic. DES ^(talk) 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete un verifyable movie (more likely something made up by the a 16 yo called Leah and WP:NFT but conclusion is the same.Obina 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete without the word "movie" in it we would delete it as {{nn-bio}}. Kusma (討論) 05:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:01, 3 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. Mailer Diablo 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Body odor solutions

POV fork TMS63112 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete and merge useful content to Body odor TMS63112 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Remember that if anything is merged, we cannot delete the edit history. It needs to be retained either by merging or redirecting it somewhere to give attribution to the original contributor. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It's a personal anecdote pure and simple. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Original research, unverified, WP:NPOV violation. (aeropagitica) 21:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Un verified, original research. No merge, since it is not true. Rubbing anything smelly on the axilla can have a short term tiny effect, but acids are not particularly effective against iso-valeric acid, or any of the other top components of BO. I stongly suggest you do not try this at home, as several odor generating microflora actually prefer slightly acidic conditions - and they all love trace organic residue = food.Obina 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 06:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Original research, unverified. *drew 06:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete O.R. Ruby 06:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-verified original research. Even lime juice won't save this stinker. Turnstep 21:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unencyclopaedic and quite possibly complete bollocks Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 17:24, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bongaigaon Refinery

An outdated press release MNewnham 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete It's a copyright vio too, I just can't track down the original source (as it has been mirrored on various news feeds.)--Adam ^(talk) 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete spam Ruby 08:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ruby ;-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:59, 3 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. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence Freenet

As per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, spam is not grounds for speedy deletion, and it must be voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. However, pages containing only a link to an external site can be tagged with {{db-nocontent}}, and so on. Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:21, Feb. 2, 2006

Delete per nom. --Lockley 23:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete' per nom. Advert. Dead giveaway, first thing is a weblink. Stifle 00:38, 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 userfy --W.marsh 01:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Dubie and Dave Sciuto

Vanity page created by user Davesciuto TMS63112 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If the claims in the article are true, this may be a borderline case. I wanted to nominate it for discussion, though. Neutral for now. TMS63112 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Not ready to vote, but the claims may be true see here [33]. still looking.Obina 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Userfy, not useful in the main article space. Stifle 00:38, 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. Ifnord 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deutschland class cruiser

Delete There is a better article about the same thing at Pocket battleship --Yooden

Keep, while "pocket battleship" is the term for the genre of the Deutschland-class, the class itself deserves an article as well, like all warship classes. If anything, pocket battleship should redirect to the class, but I don't think that's necessary. Lord Bob 21:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I mention above, Pocket battleship is an article about the class. --Yooden

I'm not quite sure how to express my opinion. Words are not forming in my brain. I shall try...while pocket battleship could be quite a reasonable article on the background and things, Deutschland class cruiser could be quire a reasonable article on the technical characteristics associated with class pages. In addition, if one should be merged into the other, it should be Pocket battleship into Deutschland class cruiser. Was I able to make sense that time? Lord Bob 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice plan. Currently however, Deutschland class cruiser is a subset of Pocket battleship, so it should go. Later on, the then single article can be named as it is deemed best. Currently we have three articles about the individual ships, two about the class and one category. Cleanup is required. --Yooden

Keep as per Lord Bob Jcuk 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Move pocket battleship to Panzerschiff ('armoured ship'), which is the name of this ship class in German. Make Deutschland class cruiser a redirect to Panzerschiff. In particular, as each of the three ships have their own article including relevant technical information, and Deutschland class cruiser holds no further information, there is no need for two articles. Sliggy 22:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep!!!! WP:Ships has had extensive discussions about organizing ship articles, and this one is perfectly in line with the arrived concensus. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) for further talk on the matter. Pocket battleship should remain as an article about the term, not specifically about the Deutschland class (although it is true that it is the only class to be called by the term), which information belongs exactly in the targetted article. Panzerschiff is a fine name for the German Wikipedia, but not for the English version. The Deutschlands really weren't 'Panzerschiff' at all (the term was used for political/legal cover). Keep Deutschland class cruiser, keep pocket battleship. Josh 15:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind an article about the class, but there are two, and one is a subset of the other.

No, only Deutschland class cruiser is a class article. Pocket battleship is a ship type article. Josh 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, and the ship type has exactly three ships, the same as the class. Don't you think it's a bit nit-picking to make a distinction here? Some quotes: "Pocket battleship(s ...) were also known as the Deutschland class", "The British began referring to the (Deutschland class cruisers) as pocket battleships" --Yooden

Why would you want one article about one specific nickname and one about everything else?

The nickname represents an interesting phenomenon, which it can be argued is worhy of an article to discuss. I would tend to agree, given the term's unique presence in naval history. However, it doesn't mitigate the need for the correct class article Deutschland class cruiser. 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The nickname is not worth more than a paragraph.

I don't mind what the article is called. At the moment, pocket battleship is a superset of Deutschland class cruiser; the latter is simply redundant. --Yooden

I wouldn't mind calling the one remaining article Deutschland class cruiser. In fact, given that all of you do your best to misunderstand me, I should've simply moved the content and redirect. (That's what you get for pleasing the rule fanboys.) --Yooden

The reason I submit my proposals to CfD or AfD is not to 'please the rule fanboys', but instead because I am not the only one with ideas on how to do things, and my ideas aren't always the best. This is especially true when dealing with subjects that aren't central to my own knowledge, but even on those I consider to be my forte it is helpful to get other's views. Intentionally making edits to circumvent the CfD/AfD process, especially when a vote like this has expressed that there is no concensus for what you are doing, is grounds I believe for administrative action. Josh 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So watch me not doing it until this is over. After that, however, I will start a new discussion on the two pages. And I really don't think that removing redundant information is grounds for administrative action. (To give you a head start: Please provide a list of information that is in Deutschland class cruiser but not in pocket battleship.) --Yooden

To qualify that: I know that rule are required, I only think rules work against Wikipedia in this case. The article is completely and completely obviously useless (so far no reason was given why it should exist), and I think work directly on the articles would have shown that in a much simpler way than this AfD. --Yooden

Keep and expand — Pocket battleship is a superset of this class. — RJH 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is a subset of the ship class? Please elaborate. --Yooden

RJH did say 'superset' not 'subset'. 'Pocket battleship' is a moniker applied by the British to the Deutschland as a counter to the German moniker of Panzerschiffe. The name could well apply to not only the Deutschland class, but also could apply to other similar German designs such as 'Cruiser P' and other designs that were not produced. None-the-less 'pocket battleship' is not strictly limited to the Deutschland even though in practice, it was the only class to actually be built that was called such. Josh 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, I was confused about whether he refered to the articles or the classes. Anyway, the nickname was only applied to the Deutschland and her siblings. --Yooden

Keep - pocket battleship should refer to the Deutschalnd class for the ship details, explain how the term came about - eg newspaper reports - and then comment on any modern day usage of the term. GraemeLeggett 10:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should, but it doesn't. So what's your point? --Yooden

That we shouldn't just redirect pocket batleship to "Deutschland class". GraemeLeggett 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so once again more slowly. Whatever Pocket battleship could be in our collective wet dream, at the moment it is a superset of Deutschland class cruiser. Even if it were different, the circumstances leading to the nickname 'pocket battleship' are hardly worth a paragraph. --Yooden

Keep - integrate relevant data from Pocket battleship an redirect "Pocket battleship" ->"Deutschland class cruiser" --Moroboshi 19:27, 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 Delete. HappyCamper 02:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universaltravel

Article as it stands: substub on non-notable travel agency. Article from history: Advertising for a non-notable travel agency. Much blanking, reverting etc of article inbetween. Article by new user, so benefit of doubt here rather than speedy (unless consensus otherwise, of course).➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 21:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete using db-empty. --OscarTheCat^talk 22:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough (possible advert). --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as {{db-nocontext}}. Stifle 00:39, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chromasoul

Non-notable band with zero albums. 26 unique hits on google, nothing at Amazon. Good luck in the future but for now, Delete ++Deiz 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, WP:NMG. PJM 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as per {{db-band}} - WP:Music refers as per nom. (aeropagitica) 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This AfD entry and the associated article & talk page were blanked by 12.218.120.127. Now reverted. ++Deiz 01:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
DELETE Please

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. Ifnord 20:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lowrider (band)

Non-notable band, found it very difficult to verify notability with the given links and information. Obviously "lowrider" gets a lot of google hits for various reasons but 15 unique / 37 total for "lowrider sweden". Probably a band for specialist web lists rather than an encyclopedia, Delete ++Deiz 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Lowrider has released one significant album, that has made some impact, with allmusic.com stating that it was "alternately praised and condemned profusely by critics" [34] and "Lowrider was hailed by many as the new Kyuss" which is definitely a good reason imho to leave this article as a part of the entire Stoner metal complex, which itself is obviously significant enough for WP. See the 'press section' of the bands label to confirm that hey have had signifcant press coverage [35]. If you have wishes or comments on how the article should be improved, I will gladly contribute what I am able to. --Johnnyw 00:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Addition. Their split EP was a collaborative effort with Nebula, a band that was founded by 2 ex-members of Fu Manchu. --Johnnyw 00:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No complaints here if they really are notable (WP:MUSIC), it's out of love for the genre that I'm cleaning up the category. Obviously Nebula and Fu Manchu are sweet but each band has to be judged on their own merits... Debate remains open, get stuck in J... ++Deiz 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep as per Johnnyw. Allmusic bio and 148,000 Google hits for Lowrider Sweden makes them notable enough for mine see [36]. Capitalistroadster 01:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm more than satisfied that this will now become a much better article (and the first to admit that I screwed up the google criteria a little, although "148,000" should be qualified with the news that a very large proportion of those hits are nothing to do with this subject), happy to retract the nomination ++Deiz 02:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly revamp the article this weekend.. --Johnnyw 10:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've completed editing the article. Please feel free to comment if you have any further suggestions. I removed the AfD tag to speedy keep this article, I hope you approve. --Johnnyw 15:39, 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 --W.marsh 01:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brykhon

I believe that this article may be in error. I can find no reference to a mythological god called Brykhon either on Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities or doing a Google search. There are no references given. I would vote Delete unless References are cited. James084 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Keep. One reference, at least to the name of the river, is in Hesychius' dictionary Greek Wikisource. I have yet to find the reference for the story with the Giants - but that seems plausible. Wait till I get to consult "Thesaurus Linguae Graecae" tomorrow. I'd prefer to move to "Brychon", btw, or is there a policy in favour of <kh>? Lukas ^(T.|@) 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I now find that the name is still/again used for a river even today; the Modern Greek name form is Βρύχωνας/Βρύχωνα. Lukas ^(T.|@) 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination. Vote Keep and move to Brychon as per Lukas above. James084 23:08, 2 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. --bainer (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Side Seat Driver

Non-notable band with very little context on their article. 86 unique googles for "side seat driver" and not all about the band, nothing on Amazon, fails all wiki tests... Delete. ++Deiz 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. The article started as some kind of advertising. I removed most of it, added a cleanup tag. The original author never bothered to return his attention to the article. --Johnnyw 00:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:57, 3 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 01:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punky Mendoza

Vanity, non-notable band member. If band were notable, then this group member ought to just appear on band's article page. OscarTheCat^talk 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete nn artist Ruby 08:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN. --Kinu 08:10, 4 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 01:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Programs and Websites

Delete. Unnotable webpage/company, contains advertisment Jan Smolik 21:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. O bli (Talk) 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. As an aside, I visited their web site, and thought my monitor had somehow switched down to 16 color VGA mode -- what's with the ordered dithering?? JulesH 22:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as blatant WP:VSCA. --Kinu 08:11, 4 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 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ConceptWiki

Not sure whether notable, also not sure whether page is merely a plot to get hits onto user's own wiki site OscarTheCat^talk 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Google gives 4 unique pages on the term. Neologism, original research. Can't make heads or tails of the story anyhow. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Welcome to the concept of AfD reality Ruby 07:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Week delete - A shame, quite a nice idea to mingle wiki's and concept maps, very Web 2.0. There has been a few cases of this idea being applied to wikipedia, something I'm quite into doing. --Salix alba (talk) 08:56, 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 01:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabethtown (TV series)

A student-produced television series, run on a college station MNewnham 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Unique concept, article should have a chance to grow. --AlexWCovington (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- It might be unique, but that doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. General precedent is locally-broadcast TV series are not notable unless they feature some well known individuals or become notable in some way. If the series gets picked up in syndication or a cable network, then I'd say revisit it then. 23skidoo 16:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:49, 3 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. Shanel 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anson wu

Search for "'Anson wu' philosopher" does not return any results on google. Name of the creator is "Anson7up" which indicates a vanity article. Delete or Speedy Delete if possible. Fightindaman 22:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, but since the article asserts the importance of its subject it isn't eligible for speedy deletion. NoIdeaNick 22:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The article has been blanked by the original author, which I believe, WP:CSD says can be taken as a desire for deltion. I believe it can be Speedily Deleted now. Fightindaman 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete vanity page. Weregerbil 01:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable even if he wasn't a nerd as claimed in the article. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable vanity. Kusma (討論) 02:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:V. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - vanity. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. We can't speedy this as there have been other contributors. Stifle 00:29, 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. Shanel 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freestyle society

Advert like entry for college society TimPope 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Agreed. --AlexWCovington (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - advertising. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete The scariest part is that its talking about something "baced" in college Ruby 07:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete disagree.--Brian Hello, Im very new to this part of the Wikipedia process so i hope im doing this right. I ask that you do not delete this article because the student who posted the remarks is been reprimanded by my college. I started this article to try and encourage other societies in other colleges to meet up and become more active. I also hoped that other people from around the world would see it and get inspired. please also see Breakdancing-Clubs and Societies this is allowing people to grow and find more about other groups. NOTE:(Latinus "advertising") can I ask how is it advertising? --Brian14:38, 7 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter wong essay

Wikipedia is not for publishing undergraduate essays. Delete. Fightindaman 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Original research. Dr Debug (Talk) 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research. NoIdeaNick 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT WP is not a place to publish original research. (aeropagitica) 23:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. An article under this title should be about an essay anyway. Kusma (討論) 02:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - look suspiciously like vanity. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, anyone? Besides, it's not even that good of an essay, Peter. --Kinu 08:10, 4 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 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency childbirth

No vote. Listing on the AfD page because User:84.163.92.13 tagged the article but did not list here. Lbbzman 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete not an encyclopedia article. A primer of some type maybe -Nv8200p talk 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - WP:NOT a how-to guide -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Somebody desperately needs this information. -- Marvin147 20:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep This could save my kid's life someday, and I'd certainly go looking for it here. --Steverapaport 4 February 2006
- I should hope you wouldn't -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to. Possible transwiki to Wikisource or Wikibooks. Stifle 00:40, 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 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Assyrian Revolutionist Society

Not notable. A secret society with unknown number of members. Zero google hits. Tagged Unreferencedsect and notability a week ago and asked author for references, no answer. Weregerbil 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, unverified, looks like original research with speculation. Closest I see in Google is "Assyrian Democratic Movement", which seeks an autonomous state for Assyrians in Iraq and holds seats in the Kurdish parliament. No matches for this full ARS name. No matches in Google Books, either. (I'm reminded of Foucault's Pendulum ... will a new Assyrian Revolutionist Society pop up based on a hoax Wikipedia entry?) Barno 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ruby 08:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable - secret societies are inherently unverifiable. Stifle 00:40, 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 00:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Ricker

Found this on Answers.com's copy of the article about Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation. Can't seem to find her on IMDb and Google, and she has never been credited in the movies.

Besides, this article lacks valid sources—hence the {{verify}} tag at the top. If you know anything about this child actress, let me know and help me out. --Slgrandson 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Not only were the roles uncredited, she would have been two years old when Howard the Duck was recorded, so that can't be correct either. Can't find anything either. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverified. Capitalistroadster 02:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete nothing on imdb. Uncredited roles? Anyone could say they had uncredited roles. Proof? Mr Frosty 19:09, 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 --W.marsh 00:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House of Kabob

Delete. Non-notable band. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete No proof they meet notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 23:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete {{db-band}} candidate. Fails WP:Music criteria - singles/albums chart positions; notable members, etc. (aeropagitica) 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:44, 3 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 "Geogre deleted "Woody's barbecue" (Predicate nominatives are not stubs; it is many different restaurants; article empty)" Adrian Lamo ·· 04:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woody's barbecue

Delete. Is this article really useful at all? It's only one sentence Police officer 23:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not enough info to build an article on -Nv8200p talk 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Robin Williams 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. Google search yields 130,000 hits, but it's not enough info to build an article on like Nv8200p said. Royboycrashfan 21:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Google gives a lot of results for it. 64.194.44.220 12:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as my Google search yields only 372 results, all of which seem to be for a single restaurant in Ft. Meyer's, Florida. Not that the article even states where the restaurant is. Turnstep 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- There's a Woody's barbecue in my area and I don't live in Ft. Meyer's, Florida. 64.194.44.220 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete; unverifiable, as no one can know where the resaurant is. Google gives differing results. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:30, 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 00:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Gibson (filmmaker)

Non-notable or Vanity. Cannot find him or his films on IMDb Nv8200p talk 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ruby 08:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Still more Murray Independent Filmmaker Association garbage. StarryEyes 13:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Maustrauser 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Wheee! NPR show! Definitely not notable enough. Sukiari 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 delete --W.marsh 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Night of the Living Dead Man on Campus

Non-notable independent short film Nv8200p talk 23:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep First "zombie comedy" film (Unless Abbott and Costello beat them to the punch) Ruby 08:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete If the author cites sources for the assertions, then keep, else delete as vanity. TheRingess 08:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Come on, it's a vanity article about a non-notable short film made by some non-notable college kids; keeping this would set an unsightly precedent. And despite the article's boast, it is not the first zombie comedy film. I Was a Teenage Zombie predates it by twenty years, and I'd wager that that isn't even the first zombie comedy. StarryEyes 12:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (P.S. This links from Murray Independent Filmmaker Association, which boasts a haven of vanity links all up for AfD or CSD.)
Delete as vanity; it certainly wasn't the first intentionally funny zombie movie. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 15:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:41, 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 delete. — FireFox • T • 10:21, 3 February 2006

[edit] Chantelle Houghton and the Briefs Controversy

Suspected hoax, unverifiable, patent nonsense Sunfazer (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Preposterously titled (and presumably fake) news story. Flower party■ 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Hoax, google returns zip. Weregerbil 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Annihilate 3rd rate hoax. -- GWO
Speedy delete - as per comments above --Vivenot 09:57, 3 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 00:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack of Lobsterboy

Non-notable independent short film Nv8200p talk 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ruby 08:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There's a whole lot of junk linking from the Murray Independent Filmmaker Association page, I'm listing them all on AfD now. StarryEyes 13:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Maustrauser 13:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:44, 3 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 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Wilkins

Seems like a hoax, no sources given and none apparent from googling his name along with various key words from the article. That the article says things like he "is best-known for his absurdly large testicles" doesn't inspire confidence, either. Delete. AJR | Talk 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Unverified {{hoax}}, unless someone can demonstrate the truthfulness of an element of the article? (aeropagitica) 23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete A clear case of Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. A Uzbek film maker who died in 1902 - the first films were just being filmed then. Capitalistroadster 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - hoax. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
'Delete per nom and Capitalistroadster. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:14, 3 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Risoldi

Non-notable teacher. Could find no references to this person on the internet. According to the article, Risoldi is not notable outside the high school where he teaches. Delete Bombycil 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. db-bio. Weregerbil 01:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-bio. Kusma (討論) 05:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. Textbook WP:CSD A7 candidate. I'm sure Mr. Risoldi is an excellent teacher, but it has been well established that teachers in general are not valid encyclopedia topics, see WP:BIO guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 3 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 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Job Turkey

This website is a hoax. There are no jobs on this site, only fake listings. Delete Bombycil 23:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete perhaps a candidate for BJAODN, though -- Aim Here 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Bad joke, but not the sort of bad joke worth remembering. Very probable hoax. Lord Bob 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's not helpful or funny, nor is it part of the internet zeitgeist.

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 00:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regnard Kreisler Raquedan

Non-notable web developer. Only assertion to notability is that he is "recognized as one of the advocates of Web Usability and Standards in the Philippines," hardly persuasive since that's not exactly a notable position to advocate and there's no evidence of who recognizes him as such an advocate. Google returns some links, but they are mostly self-referential (not surprisingly, a web developer has a bunch of web pages advertising himself) and they don't provide evidence that he meets any standard of notability. —Cleared as filed. 23:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete "advocate of Web Usability and Standards" describes just about any professional web designer; if he were Jakob Nielsen it would be different, but he doesn't seem that notable Ergot 17:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ergot. Stifle 00:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Found resume online - grad student to complete 2nd masters degree this year. Reads like his resume. Not notable as far as web designers. —ERcheck @ 06:10, 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 already deleted; no need for further discussion. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afronasia

Delete as non-notable neologism with only 2 Googles. King of Hearts | (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. chaotic page as well. Dr Debug (Talk) 23:57, 2 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 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Door to the Zone

Supposedly a cocktail, but there is no source and Google finds nothing [37]. Article's creator has not responded to a request for a source or a move to Wikibooks, nor has anyone else after placing an {{unreferenced}} tag (surprise surprise). Delete for lack of verifiability and per Wikipedia is not a recipe book. --Malthusian (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikibooks or Wikisource or whereever they put arbitrary drink recipes, if they want it. Otherwise, delete. Lord Bob 00:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ruby 07:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Only GHits related to this article. —ERcheck @ 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] February 2

[edit] Gaelic punk

[edit] Coney island whitefish

[edit] The 'idea-of'the latest thought on the mechanics of memetics and design practice

[edit] Proto Man: Powered Up

[edit] Nadanai Laohakunakorn

[edit] Humanistic naturalism

[edit] List of VH1's 100 Greatest Songs from the Past 25 Years

[edit] Naturean

[edit] Poison Mushroom

[edit] Axegrinder

[edit] Wikicompany

[edit] List of groups of four

[edit] What A Brand Is

[edit] List of crimes against the apostrophe

[edit] Insane Crips

[edit] Mansuit

[edit] Quiet Desperation

[edit] Mikhail Tank

[edit] Travicola

[edit] Zanzibar Radio

[edit] G-Men(Slang)

[edit] Brent bradshaw

[edit] Soul.za

[edit] Frank Crosina (2nd nomination)

[edit] The Coptic Orthox Church

[edit] Karayana and David Dom

[edit] StabilAntenna

[edit] Evening's Greetings

[edit] Otterkill Golf & Country Club

[edit] Masskontroll

[edit] Antisystem

[edit] List of famous opiate addicts

[edit] Awag

[edit] Yusradi Usman Al Gayoni

[edit] Moshe Sinai

[edit] Marionette body

[edit] Jump Mobile

[edit] Maxim magazine's 20 Most Annoying Songs Ever!

[edit] Bryce Beverlin II

[edit] Newton's fourth law

[edit] Super Nintendo World

[edit] Hodgson Ski Tours

[edit] New Bullet

[edit] ~1~

[edit] Joel braverman

[edit] Marc Gruenhut

[edit] Jaime Vendera

[edit] Frank Lowe

[edit] Introsexual

[edit] Captain Arthur H. Keller

[edit] Ethan Jodziewicz

[edit] Mitry - Claye (SNCF)

[edit] Michael Wayne

[edit] Cupcake party

[edit] Eric Fensler

[edit] Back-space.org

[edit] Search And Rescue Records

[edit] Midnight Special (store)

[edit] Kemo For Emo

[edit] Mississippi Mud Pie

[edit] Yankel Miller

[edit] The Edison Phase

[edit] Clickpenang

[edit] Exfuga

[edit] The AC/EP

[edit] Running with Scissors (webcomic)

[edit] Angus George Harcourt Perry

[edit] Test Squad

[edit] Gravitational shift

[edit] Edison Glass

[edit] Nothing Personal

[edit] Child Online Protection Act i

[edit] Forty-nine character virtues

[edit] Neptunes Convoy

[edit] Christopher Clarke

[edit] Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks