Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 30
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] December 30
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Can't be Arsed
Never gonna warrant a real entry --Dangherous 00:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete as it stands. It may be expanded (articles often are after included in AfD) but at this point I don't see how. Ifnord 00:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete as above, might be a wikitionary one Robdurbar 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Copy to Wiktionary, then delete this. -- The Anome 00:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Wiktionary already covering it better. --Quarl 01:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wiktionary can cover this in more depth and proper context. -- (aeropagitica)
01:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC) - Move to Wiktionary. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please read the immediately preceding discussion. Uncle G 01:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and no transwiki per Uncle G. Movementarian 04:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. novacatz 06:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Longhair 06:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Cobra 09:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 10:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Nick123 (t/c) 13:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Sarah Ewart 13:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Roisterer 14:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Dicdefcruft. Transwiki. JFW | T@lk 14:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and no transwiki per Uncle G. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Delete per nom. Even although it is common in the UK. --Kilo-Lima 16:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -Fabhcún 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete- Give it the Arse. Reyk 21:07, 30 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 keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stephen Humby
Minor actor. From speedy. No vote. r3m0t talk 01:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Grange Hill, Football Hooligans and Pirates of the Carribean make him quite a notable actor, even if he played a bit part in the last two. Hedley 01:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand the page with biographical data. The spelling needs attention too. -- (aeropagitica) 01:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, stub, and expand. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - I just sorted it into stub category UK-actor-stubs. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Though he's been in some big movies, he seems to be little more than an extra in them. Technically, this article could be speedied for not asserting importance. Being an actor does not, in itself, make someone famous. Coffee 03:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain. I have added some content, the rest of you can decide if he can stay or not. Movementarian 04:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- Rob 09:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- keep80.177.152.156 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Have to agree with Coffee, when you look though his IMDb entry you'll find all bit parts and half of them are uncredited such as, "man in crowd". Ifnord 16:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Too minor: --Kilo-Lima 16:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sailor
- Soldier
- Crowd member
- Keep costs us little, and he is credited which is good enough for me. CarbonCopy (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep- has had one major-ish role. Reyk 21:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as there are some roles of note --TimPope 13:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above. Evil Eye 22:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Compiano
Don't seem proper, it's innacurate ans somehow contains POV Clutcher 00:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and tidy. It's a real place. Jcuk 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as verifiable geographical place [1]. --Quarl 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. There is no reason for it not to have a page, if someone can provide NPOV historical data and context. -- (aeropagitica) 01:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. rodii 01:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, stub (I sorted it), and expand. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Dlyons493 Talk 03:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Ajwebb 15:47, 30 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wolfbagging
Dubious sexual practice, precious little verification other than anecdote in chat boards and an entry in urbandictionary.com and this at sex-lexis.com. Delete unless a proper cite can be provided. -- The Anome 00:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete If a citation can be provided, the term can be Merged with the anal sex article, there is no reason for it to be separate. -- (aeropagitica) 01:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - If I try to verify this term on Google I will have to go to confession. Endomion 02:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, 0 results on google image search says it's not in wide use. (And per above.) - Bobet 02:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn --Pboyd04 02:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless verified. Movementarian 04:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, we must stop adding unverified sexual practices to Wikipedia. -- Kjkolb 07:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Whatever. --Kilo-Lima 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I've restored the article's history for the moment; it's been deleted three times since the new logging system went in about a year ago, and at least three times prior to that. Besides a bunch of patent nonsense, there are two revisions that contain somewhat more substantial articles than the current. (Not, er, that I genuinely think this should be kept... but they're not quite so bad as the current version.) —Cryptic (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or merge into anal sex, Gronky 13:33, 31 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 redirect. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] List of Sesame Street Monster characters
I don't think this has much point, really. It's a list of the monster characters in Sesame Street. I'm pretty sure that List of Sesame Street characters is enough. This just seems unnecessary to me. Hedley 01:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the existing list of characters from the programme is sufficient. -- (aeropagitica) 01:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, list of all characters is sufficient. VegaDark 04:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Surpassed and made redundant by List of Sesame Street characters. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 05:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Sesame Street characters to discourage recreation. Movementarian 05:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per Movementarian. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect monstercruft. JFW | T@lk 14:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm closing this as "redirect" even though the votes are 50/50. Redirects are cheap and maybe this will be avoid this cruft from being recreated. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:14, 31 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 keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Half and half
Content empty PoorLeno 01:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename This appears to pertain to two distinct food & drink commodities. The page should be a disambiguation point rather than an article. -- (aeropagitica) 01:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Black and Tan. The dairy product is never going to be more than a definition. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Disambig short definition of the milk product and a link to Black and Tan --Pboyd04 02:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Add a disambiguation link at the top of the article to Black and Tan -- Kjkolb 11:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep expand and disambig Jcuk 09:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and disambiguate. "Half and Half" is also a brand name from Nantucket Nectars for their half iced tea half lemonade concoction. You can call me Al 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and disambiguate per Aeverett.
SoothingR 14:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC) - Keep. Clean up as above. I remember reading an American recipie that called for a half cup of "half and half". I thought to myself, 'Half of what and half of what?' Ifnord 16:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand - Needs major re-filling. If it was too short, it should have been nominated as a speedy. --Kilo-Lima 16:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Disambig - There are actually more definitions for half and half, in fact, I originally thought that these definitions were dime a dozen. So just make a list and remove the fluff. PoorLeno 23:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Disambig. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep--Samuel J. Howard 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] OSBetaArchive
Subject of article appears to be a non-notable online posting forum "for collectors" with under 2,000 registered members (which, like all online forums, means far less active members) Fuhghettaboutit 01:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The article needs to be expanded with a rationale for the existence of the group and details of their activities and archive. The link to the website should go in to an external links section. If none of this is appropriate, delete. -- (aeropagitica) 01:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete; It seems to have
morefewer than 5000 users,butand I see no evidence of impact outside its community. Alexa rank of three million, no media attention. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- From the statistics at bottom of page "We have 1,991 registered members." --Fuhghettaboutit 02:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. I misread the standards on Wikipedia:Notability (websites). Tom Harrison (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- From the statistics at bottom of page "We have 1,991 registered members." --Fuhghettaboutit 02:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:WEB --Pboyd04 02:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl (talk) 09:03, 30 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 delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A001622
What is this?? Is this a real article?? Please delete. Georgia guy 01:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like gibberish to me. -Shane Lawrence 01:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not gibberish, though. Uncle G 01:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- My mistake. I meant to add that comment for another article in the list that is gibberish. Not sure where I mussed up. Sincerest apologies... -Shane Lawrence 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Or, upon looking at the history, I commented on the right article. So confused. I'm just going to be quiet now... -Shane Lawrence 17:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not gibberish, though. Uncle G 01:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's an article about the decimal expansion of the golden ratio, using the serial number that is assigned to that particular numeric sequence in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences as the article's title for some unfathomable reason. It has been redirected to golden ratio once already. Uncle G 01:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- But, no other similar re-direct exists. Georgia guy 01:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete don't redirect, no one is going to type that serial number in Wikipedia to find the entry on the golden ratio. Endomion 02:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete; I see no point in reproducing this at Wikipedia. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per poster above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, as above. Simply duplicates information already in Golden ratio. -- The Anome 02:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. What the? Witty lama 04:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Did some work. Hopefully it can be considered based on its content now and not the spurious comments made by the original author. 68.39.174.238 04:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to golden ratio -- MisterHand 07:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Golden Ratio. -- (aeropagitica) 08:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Golden ratio. —Quarl (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep makes sense to me.....if absolutely necessary merge and redirect I suppose Jcuk 09:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Have you read golden ratio? Uncle G 10:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete don't redirect. Same reasons than for Endomion above - French Tourist 12:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with golden ratio, no redirect. JFW | T@lk 14:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- That is an impossibility. An article merger implies a redirect. Uncle G 01:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete What kind of user is going to type in A001622? None; if at all any. --Kilo-Lima 16:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect (no merge). Uninteresting sequence, but the redirect is cheap and unlikely to be confused with anything else, and its presence reduces the risk of re-creation. (If necessary, lock the redirect.) --Trovatore 20:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Locking (protecting) the redirect, is not a good idea; one should protect pages sparingly. I am afraid that allowing such redirects in will open a can of worms. Redirects should be made only if they are useful I would argue, not to prevent people from creating silly-named articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Even without the protection, I'm having a hard time seeing the downside of this redir. It doesn't mislead anyone (unlike if, say, I had left Black Mountain (California) (Diablo Range) as a redir after discovering there was a second Black Mountain in the Diablo Range), takes no noticeable server space, and I just don't see the scenario where people start putting in so many silly redirects that it becomes a problem. And I really do think one of the great functions of redirects is to preempt duplicate articles that authors may not have known were there. I'll allow that there is a countervailing issue if it's eventually decided that anons can't start new articles; the unprotected redir would allow an anon to recreate the article. --Trovatore 00:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirects should be useful, that's how I see it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Even without the protection, I'm having a hard time seeing the downside of this redir. It doesn't mislead anyone (unlike if, say, I had left Black Mountain (California) (Diablo Range) as a redir after discovering there was a second Black Mountain in the Diablo Range), takes no noticeable server space, and I just don't see the scenario where people start putting in so many silly redirects that it becomes a problem. And I really do think one of the great functions of redirects is to preempt duplicate articles that authors may not have known were there. I'll allow that there is a countervailing issue if it's eventually decided that anons can't start new articles; the unprotected redir would allow an anon to recreate the article. --Trovatore 00:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect- I was leaning towards delete but Trovatore makes some good points. Reyk 21:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Endomion. No-one is going to type this title in either to search or to recreate. —Blotwell 03:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete useless. PoorLeno 19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect, though I think that's a compromise. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - nobody is going to type that in. I know redirects are cheap, but really... Stifle 00:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] On the Nature of War and Nature War
Vanity, incomprehensible almost, author of the book (5 google hits) is author of the wikipage. - FrancisTyers 02:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom - FrancisTyers 02:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete this person signs there name IN THE ARTICLE Savidan 08:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This article is a poorly-written advert. -- (aeropagitica) 08:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable books, vanity. I hope the quality of the subject books is higher than this article. —Quarl (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. JFW | T@lk 14:53, 30 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 no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 00:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Westmob
seems to be a nn gang no assertion of notability, but having never been to San Fransico I thought I would put this up for AfD instead of speedy Pboyd04 02:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete there are a million street gangs in the naked city. Endomion 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Known gang in SF. -- JJay 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 07:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete non-notable and non-verifiable Savidan 08:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- keep they seem to have hit the headlines a few times Jcuk 10:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. They've been mentioned in a recent press release. SoothingR 14:30, 30 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Six Moon Hill
nn "residential community dwelling" I'm guessing its a apartment building or something seems nn Pboyd04 03:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - nothing sticks out here to make it notable. Endomion 03:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - the subject needs a more comprehensive entry to justify its inclusion. A discussion regarding construction methods and its architectural legacy - did it influence the design of other communities? - should be included, if it is notable. If not, delete. -- (aeropagitica) 08:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be lots of discussion about this development in the architectural world. Denni ☯ 05:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Cleared as filed. 00:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] SOJA - Soldiers of Jah Army
another NN band that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC --Bachrach44 03:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I don't know what the nominator is talking about,
there are 104 google hits for the string "soldiers of jah's army"Endomion 03:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Correction - My initial search string was in error, but this is even better, there are 42,000 hits for "soldiers of jah army" Endomion 18:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I'm talking about the criteria that wikipedia has set forth for which bands are considered notable enough to get wiki pages, and which aren't. These guidelines are published at WP:MUSIC, and if you click on the link you'll see exactly what they are. Suffice it to say that 104 google hits does not meet these criteria, and SOJA is not even close to meeting the criteria. (not to mention that only 14 of those hits show up, meaning there are a lot of duplicates). -- Bachrach44 03:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- No doubt - band article inclusion should not solely be based on Google hits. PJM 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- The pre-programmed one-hit wonder bread Britney crap they play on the FM dial these days is far less notable than this reggae band, but WP is set up to squash the reggae band. Go figure. Endomion 15:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but to say Wiki is set up to "squash" anything just seems sophomoric. It's only a matter of following WP:NMG...which you can certainly dispute. If you feel strongly about this article being kept, you should go on to make a better case for it. PJM 15:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The pre-programmed one-hit wonder bread Britney crap they play on the FM dial these days is far less notable than this reggae band, but WP is set up to squash the reggae band. Go figure. Endomion 15:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, nn band. --Thephotoman 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per A7. Cobra 09:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Though the article ignores wikipedia:NPOV and is non-encyclopedic, it does make assertions of notability and should not be speedied. The band is all over Google, but has an empty listing at allmusic.com. Based on what I find, they don't satisfy WP:NMG. PJM 12:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep their Google hits are 41,900 [2]
And from the article itself:
- It received nominations for Album of the Year and Song of the Year (Nuclear Bomb) at the 2001 D.C. Reggae Awards and has now been nominated for Recording of the Year at the 2002 Wammies (Washington Area Music Association) awards show. --Revolución (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment The actual number of unique Google hits is only 383. All the rest are "entries very similar to the 383 already displayed." Denni ☯ 05:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- keep. why not let readers set their own notability threshold? -- Marvin147 09:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The readers can set their own notability threshold, but we must all remember that Wikipedia is not infinite and every subject is not verifiable, so the editors must be held to a higher standard. We can verify most of the information in George Washington, but if my buddy Doug starts an article about himself, most of that stuff is unverifiable. If every person in the world decided to start making articles about themselves and other people came in and vandalized it, how would vandal-fighters know what is right and what is wrong? Furthermore, how could we manage such an influx of traffic? There are good reasons for notability requirements, although it would be nice to have a grand database of everyone in the world, but the trouble is, nobody could possibly verify any of the information, nor do we have the room for it right now. JHMM13 (T | C)
10:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- WP:WINI has no more to do with this than notability. There are a finite number of people on the planet, and in recorded history, whose information is verifiable. You play a dangerous game of censorship if you delete. Keep this article if the info is verifiable --Marvin147 10:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, WP:WINI does have something to do with this, as I have stated above. We cannot verify everything that everyone has done, and I'd like to know where you get your information, because I don't think we've even got the exact number of people on the planet down, much less encyclopedic information about all of them. Furthermore, if something is changed on their article, how could we possibly know if it's true or false? There is censorship here, but Wikipedia is not a forum for ultimate free speech. We arrive at consensuses for guidelines and policies based on the limitations we have. Unfortunately, for the reasons I have stated above (none of which you addressed in your response), we simply cannot put everything into Wikipedia. Verifiability and quantity are two of the important things to keep in mind here. JHMM13 (T | C) 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, WP:WINI does have something to do with this, as I have stated above. We cannot verify everything that everyone has done, and I'd like to know where you get your information, because I don't think we've even got the exact number of people on the planet down, much less encyclopedic information about all of them. Furthermore, if something is changed on their article, how could we possibly know if it's true or false? There is censorship here, but Wikipedia is not a forum for ultimate free speech. We arrive at consensuses for guidelines and policies based on the limitations we have. Unfortunately, for the reasons I have stated above (none of which you addressed in your response), we simply cannot put everything into Wikipedia. Verifiability and quantity are two of the important things to keep in mind here. JHMM13 (T | C)
- WP:WINI has no more to do with this than notability. There are a finite number of people on the planet, and in recorded history, whose information is verifiable. You play a dangerous game of censorship if you delete. Keep this article if the info is verifiable --Marvin147 10:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The readers can set their own notability threshold, but we must all remember that Wikipedia is not infinite and every subject is not verifiable, so the editors must be held to a higher standard. We can verify most of the information in George Washington, but if my buddy Doug starts an article about himself, most of that stuff is unverifiable. If every person in the world decided to start making articles about themselves and other people came in and vandalized it, how would vandal-fighters know what is right and what is wrong? Furthermore, how could we manage such an influx of traffic? There are good reasons for notability requirements, although it would be nice to have a grand database of everyone in the world, but the trouble is, nobody could possibly verify any of the information, nor do we have the room for it right now. JHMM13 (T | C)
- Weak keep. These guys show up on Allmusic.com, and 42,200 Google hits. They don't seem to meet too many of the WP:MUSIC guidelines, but check this fan site out. They seem to be pretty notable in the reggae community, even if not for a major record label. I suggest they be kept considering all of the above. I'm not going to be too adament about this keep, but I think they are just notable enough to warrant inclusion. JHMM13 (T | C) 10:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, currently no information is provided to suggest that this band meets WP:MUSIC. Stifle 00:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dana French
It is about 4 months since there was a call for the importance of this article to be explained and nothing has happened. PatGallacher 03:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete quick google search turned up this tripod site seems to be this guys. probable vanity page. --Pboyd04 03:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity page. -- (aeropagitica) 08:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete.
void(0). JFW | T@lk 14:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC) - Delete and I'm closing this. That neither the article nor this AfD have attracted much attention is in itself an argument.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Steve Termath
Does this [4] look like a notable filmography to you? (i.e. "Uncredited") Vulturell 03:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nomination. Vulturell 03:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Why are you putting articles on AfD if you think they should be speedied? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete nn bio. --Pboyd04 03:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete professional movie extra. Endomion 03:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I reckon being listed on IMDb is sufficient to beat A7, but a largely-uncredited "professional movie extra" (as Endomion succinctly put it) isn't really notable enough for an encyclopaedic article. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ummm... you do realize that every single actor who has ever been billed in movie credits is listed on the IMDB? Even that guy working in Pizza Hut down your block who had one line in Mean Girls? Vulturell 04:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Well, sort of. I'm sure IMDb isn't as complete as it would like to be; but quibbling aside, yes, I do appreciate this, and I appreciated it before I expressed my opinion. Presumably User:Deathphoenix does, too. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, I agree this doesn't qualify for a speedy, but his filmography is definitely not terribly impressive (FYI, I'm removing the speedy tag to clear the CSD category). --Deathphoenix 04:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - This actor does not appear to be noteworthy. -- (aeropagitica) 08:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete just an extra in some big movies. Doesn't establish notability. Cobra 09:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Even although he is totally minor. --Kilo-Lima 16:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, but the IMDb link is a good enough claim of notability for me. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep a credited role is listed, which is good enough for me. CarbonCopy (talk) 19:56, 30 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Khurshid Marwat
Delete From what I gather he is a civil servant that likes to writes poetry. I would argue that doesn't rate a page. However I could be wrong.--Looper5920 02:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Don't Delete So many notable civil/public servants in Pakistan have literary contributions viz Qudratullah Shahab, Brig. Sadiq Salik, Daud Kamal etc. I dont see any harm if one is a civil servant and writes poetry. In Pakistan being a part of the Civil Services is considered as a matter of honor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigar (talk • contribs)
- Keep - Categorise the page appropriately and modify the entry to place the poet in context with Pakistani literature, if notable. If not, delete. -- (aeropagitica) 09:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The original author and an an IP address have removed the Afd tag in the articles brief history. I can find no confirmation of the book of poetry or of its author. Dlyons493 Talk 09:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per aeropagitica Jcuk 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The article contains claims of notability, but they are not backed up by any evidence. I vote Delete unless proofs are provided. - Liberatore(T) 14:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable and probable vanity. Ifnord 16:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I have uploaded some of the images of his book that I currently have. I wish I had his Urdu book otherwise I would have also uploaded those images as well. All editors are requested to please appreciate the fact that it was a pioneering effort by a Pathan to write poetry in a language which was neither his mother tongue nor national dialect. This book may have gone unnoticed at that time, probably because of the reason that nobody cares for English poets in Pakistan and especially from a conservative place like NWFP. However, there were book reviews about this book in leading English Newspapers of Pakistan viz. “The Frontier Post” and “Pakistan Observer” at that time (I don’t have copies of those reviews but everybody is welcome to contact those two Newspapers and check their archives of late 1993). Even still if editors consider that this entry may be deleted then they are welcome to do so but then someone's genuine effort might go unnoticed. I may plead that it may be Kept.
|
Title of the Book1.jpg
|
Back Cover1.jpg
|
Copyright1.jpg
|
Contents1.jpg
|
|
Foreword1.jpg
|
Foreword-2.jpg
|
- Weak keep if cleaned up. Appears to be at least notable within field in area - systemic bias, blah blah. FCYTravis 07:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. We probably need to remove the samples of his poetry as copyvio, though. -Colin Kimbrell 17:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. (and note that the third image above suggests that 1000 copies were printed. Even if we assume that every single one was sold, that isn't much.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I saw that too, but I don't know that a thousand-copy first printing isn't notable for the context (i.e. a foreign-language poetry collection published in Pakistan). It feels like it might be kind of a specialty market. -Colin Kimbrell 14:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Genta (corporation)
Promotional, doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. Had to move this because there's another article from last May with the same name (not the same one, it seems). Daniel Case 03:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn when they invent the cancer drug that the FDA accepts then they can get an article. --Pboyd04 03:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - The company doesn't appear to be notable. This reads as poorly-written promotion. -- (aeropagitica) 09:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Aeropagitica -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Countdown's Worst Person in the World
This page just lists a seemingly one-time only subject from a tv news show. Is this really necessary for a separate article? ErikNY 03:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as written the article doesn't even make sense --Pboyd04 04:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete utter nonsense -- Nessuno834 04:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, remark already mentioned at John Gibson (media host). Gazpacho 05:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Countdown with Keith Olbermann. This is a segment on the show. Doesn't require its own article, but redirecting may discourage recreation. Movementarian 05:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - The content is nonsense and the page only refers to part of a programme that already has its own entry. -- (aeropagitica) 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - nonsense -- SGBailey 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't seem to have a complete sentence, and not very notable in any case doktorb | words 11:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and Cleanup It is a regular segment on Countdown. Just need some work and expanding. --D-Day 12:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Weird. --Kilo-Lima 16:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete if someone wants to read this, let them go to Countdown. If absolutely necessary, a brief mention can be placed in Countdown with Keith Olbermann. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep --Revolución (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and then redirect this cruft to avoid recreation. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Countdown with Keith Olbermann Obli (Talk) 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No real value to the wikipedian audience with this as a unique entry Phantasmo 20:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Obli. Stifle 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] All Too Flat
Non significant website. Page apparently written by owners of website. It's Vanity. Witty lama 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB Alexa Traffic Rank for alltooflat.com: 66,236 --Pboyd04 04:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity. -- (aeropagitica) 09:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not notable, vanity -- SGBailey 09:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Woah! Delete. --Kilo-Lima 16:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete article meets definition of vanispamcruftisement J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 21:20, 30 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. Non-notable, all history looks like a bad joke. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Annette Radziszewski
Seems like a joke. Only put it here instead of speedying it on the off chance I'm missing something. Daniel Case 04:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Joke page--Looper5920 04:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn bio (if not a joke) google search reveals only a person at "Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois (IL)" with that name --Pboyd04 04:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're missing something. I wrote the article and it is quite true, unfortunately it was edited to contain various absurdities (e.g. Pulitzer Prize, Nobel Prize, engagement, etc.) The think tank, sociological ties, and Xiu Xiu are very real (though moderately obscure outside a very select group).
- Maybe, but you didn't even bother to sign this comment. And truth alone does not establish notability. Daniel Case 04:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Note improvements.
- Simple edits are not necessarily improvements. I see nothing new that would establish notability. Daniel Case 04:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
i cant offer much to this but when i was studying at the University of Gdansk (Uniwersytet Gdański) i remember reading a study in the Polski Dziennik Sociologiczny that cited the work of aneta radziszewski... maybe the same person? i tried googling it but i dont think the journal is online.
- Delete. Non-notable biography. No Guru 05:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, no reasonable claim to notability is made. -- Kjkolb 07:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn academic. Can the author cite papers published in peer-reviewed journals of note or place her in context with her academic discipline? -- (aeropagitica) 09:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - not-notable or hoax -- SGBailey 09:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Note the article has been vandalised - but all versions of it appear non-notable to me. Dlyons493 Talk 09:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as poor joke, hoax, attack page, etc. Ifnord 16:18, 30 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cyclists Combating Cancer
Promptional use of wikipedia for NN group Tagishsimon (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Advertising nn charity. -- (aeropagitica) 09:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- SGBailey 10:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per aeropagitica. Stifle 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MileMaven.com
Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB Alexa Rank for milemaven.com: 458,667 Pboyd04 04:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete; if A7 only included websites.. SoothingR 14:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ad. JFW | T@lk 14:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --Kilo-Lima 16:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Despite the fact that I'm a frequent flyer, this site doesn't seem to meet the bar. FCYTravis 07:46, 31 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cyberspies
NN website using wikipedia for promo Tagishsimon (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete no traffic data on Alexa fow website, no media attention, nn. --Pboyd04 04:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for all reasons above. Daniel Case 04:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete poorly-written promotional material. -- (aeropagitica) 09:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 15:56, 30 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 Inappropriately listed here, moved to TfD. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Divizia A
It is unused. It was copied from Romanian Wikipedia (including fonts). There's another similar template, Ro Divizia A, in use. Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs) 
05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Note: This is a template, not an article. I'm going to start a WP:TfD request for this based on this nomination. --Idont Havaname 05:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Totally! -Kilo-Lima 16:46, 30 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 Redirect to TzHaar Fight Cave, somewhat surreally. The Land 20:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fire Cape
Seriously, this is describing a single item in a single MMORPG. I don't know how else to describe it's lack of notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Runescapecruft. —Cryptic (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. We're getting a lot of these of late ... we need some notability policy on this. Daniel Case 07:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I could probably point to a lot more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge There's an article called TzHaar Fight Cave which features a lot about this cape already. Merge with that. J.J.Sagnella 08:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge as above and cleanup the resulting messy page. -- (aeropagitica) 15:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong DeleteMerge with TzHaar Fight Cave and TzTok-Jad articles to create one article about different parts of one area in RuneScape. Create sections in the article for each subject -.svg/20px-Union_flag_1606_(Kings_Colors).svg.png)
«ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 17:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)- Redirect to TzHaar Fight Cave, since it appears to have already been merged into that page. -Colin Kimbrell 17:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge - combine it with the TzHaar Fight Cave and TzTok-Jad articles. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Shadowdancer (talk • contribs) UTC 19:51, 1 January 2006(Sorry for forgetting to sign - Mike 02:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC))
- Merge - combine it with above mentioned articles and also add more information - I would do, but I am unsure as to where to put it - Seems pointless putting it on a to be deleted page. Philipwhiuk 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Consolidated laboratory
Delete. Blatant advertising. It's even signed by the guy who wrote it - an employee. -- Simpatico 08:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 09:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete poorly-written advertising.-- (aeropagitica) 10:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete advert. Stifle 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Federal Mattress Company
The company appears to be non-notable and the article doesn't include reasons to justify its inclusion on WP -- (aeropagitica) 10:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. French Tourist 12:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn company. --Pboyd04 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Longhair 06:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No indication of notability cited. --GrantNeufeld 21:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom Phantasmo 20:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Packet Sniffers
The television programme is non-notable. Questions included on Talk page. -- (aeropagitica) 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Niz 15:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn "public access tv show" (yes I know thats redundant) --Pboyd04 15:32, 30 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IronDino
This is an orphan page. It should be categorised and related to suitable subjects to justify inclusion in WP. On its own, the page doesn't meet criteria for inclusion. -- (aeropagitica) 11:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Is this someone's imaginary pet? Tom Harrison (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete a quick google search just shows a few forum entries by people with the user name "IronDino" nn. --Pboyd04 15:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity. --R6MaY89 22:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Move It It seems to be a harmless character that was created out of boredom. Just move it to a cartoon topic or something... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.233.106 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 31 December 2005
- Delete as non-notable, and I'm closing this one. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 deletion ever intended - continuing discussion is at Talk:Kaplan. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kaplan
- This appears to be largely advertising/publicity about a commercial organisation
- It is 'squatting' on the name 'Kaplan' which refers to thirty or so other Kaplan articles.
At present anyone searching these is forced to see this 'advertisment' first before going on the to the page 'Kaplan (disambiguation)' I propose that the page as it stands is deleted and the contents of the page 'Kaplan (disambiguation)' are transferred to it. This would mean that anyone searching 'Kaplan' will immediately come up with the disambiguation page. I would also propose that, if the content of the present 'Kaplan' is considered appopriate for Wikipedia, it is transferred to a new page 'Kaplan Inc.' Declaration of interest: I am putting together an article on Anatoli Lvovich Kaplan. I have no ill-will towards, or any past or present connection with, Kaplan Inc. Smerus 11:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
PLEASE discuss this page move at a proper place, Talk:Kaplan. The page is listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. mikka (t) 19:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Move to Kaplan (company) and disambig to this page. The company itself is notable. Please use requested moves for future requests. PS I added an AFD notice on the page. JFW | T@lk 14:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename as above and restore the disambiguation page to the top of the Kaplan page tree. The company can then be mentioned there, if indeed it requires an encyclopædia entry at all. -- (aeropagitica) 15:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as is. Kaplan, the standardized-test related company, is by far the most notable article on that disambiguation page. It is common practice in cases like this to do exactly as has been done here. See all of the pages on this list for more examples. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rename/ and use Kaplan as DAB. To say that Kaplan Inc. is more notable that Fanya Kaplan, who shot Lenin is simply ridiculous. mikka (t) 19:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
PLEASE discuss this page move at Talk:Kaplan. The page is listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. mikka (t) 19:59, 30 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bermondsey & Canada Water League
Page created by vandal, possible hoax. I haven't researched further. -- Curps 12:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Jcuk 13:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The only link to a football team is to a page whose truthfulness has been questioned. Even if they exist, why would a team in Derbyshire be playing in an east London football league? They are several hundred miles apart. -- (aeropagitica) 15:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete complete hoax Robdurbar 19:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no google hits. External link is totally unrelated. Punkmorten 21:01, 30 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 keep. —Cleared as filed. 03:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deborah McGuinness
marked as a speedy A7 but it is not. Reason given Self-promoting entry, which practise is _strongly discouraged_. (Note topic and creator appear to be same; "article" reads like an advert. No vote --Doc ask? 13:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC) -Doc ask? 13:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment due to having had some contacts with the subject (I met her a couple of times), I prefer not vote on this article. However, I would like to mention that the number of publications, and in particular the number of citations to the subject's work [8] places her well above the "average college professor", as required by WP:BIO. Not to mention that she is a co-director of a Stanford lab. - Liberatore(T) 13:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason why Prof. McGuiness shouldn't be mentioned in the field of AI research alongside other AI researchers. The article would be better if it placed her academic achievements in context, which would also justify its inclusion. -- (aeropagitica) 15:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Very notable in the fields of Semantic Web and Ontologies (OWL especially). Google Scholar turns up over 100 publications and she's heavily cited also. Dlyons493 Talk 15:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, subject appears to be well-respected in her field, however this is not the issue at hand. Should researchers be encouraged to create their own Wikipedia entries based on their own assessment of their level of recognition in the field? This appears to be flagrant disregard for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, especially since creator/subject makes sweeping claims about her own importance and reputation. Recommend article be removed, and a fresh one started, authored by one of the above (or other) colleagues supportive of an entry for this subject (if they so choose) in order to avoid appearance of Wikipedia as a forum for self-advocacy of subjects at any level of recognition. - Democritus
- That's a valid point, but it's so easy for someone to create an account and add the article that it actually seems preferable to me to accept (but not encourage) articles from the people themselves. That at least gives a little accountability to something otherwise completely unenforcable. Dlyons493 Talk 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Observation Such acceptance is the very source of the encouragement. And if it is your position is that it is preferable to have people create articles about themselves, due to increased "accountability" of the material contained therein, then please familiarise your self with WP:AUTO#Creating_an_article_about_yourself, which clearly states a position rather different to that. - D
- That's a valid point, but it's so easy for someone to create an account and add the article that it actually seems preferable to me to accept (but not encourage) articles from the people themselves. That at least gives a little accountability to something otherwise completely unenforcable. Dlyons493 Talk 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup if you're concerned about WP:AUTO (which is only a guideline, and it seems to me to not apply in general for "notable people") (ESkog)(Talk) 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Question - Are you advocating a system of maintaining two standards regarding creation of self-promoting encyclopedia entries, one standard for those who deem themselves important, and another for those who deem themselves not? - D
- Answer Sure, I guess it's a double standard. But it's not "those who deem themselves important" but rather "those who we deem important." If Michael Jackson had created his article, we wouldn't be rushing to delete it. However, if local sixth-grader James Noname creates his, then I would be of the opinion that WP:AUTO applies. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Question - Are you advocating a system of maintaining two standards regarding creation of self-promoting encyclopedia entries, one standard for those who deem themselves important, and another for those who deem themselves not? - D
- Keep as per Dlyons493 and others above. Seems clearly notable in her field. u p p l a n d 19:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment The case for "notability" of this particular subject is certainly undermined by the fact that no-one (other than the subject herself) perceived adequate notability to feel moved to create an entry. This is exactly why the the creation of self-promoting articles is strongly discouraged; no-one is capable of judging their own "importance". If this subject is indeed notable, then let this be evidenced by someone of at least nominal neutrality taking such note, in the form of an independently created article. - D
- Keep as per Dlyons493 et al, as long as the subject doesn't try to claim control over the content. CarbonCopy (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per above votes. Nope, nothing wrong here. --King of All the Franks 23:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - while I share Democritus's concern that any self-edited article is going to be inherently biased, I also think it's a matter that should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The Deborah McGuinness article is not bad at all and does not seem unduly promotional to me. I don't feel like it would be appropriate to delete it just to make a point. Tim Pierce 12:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Either action, keeping or deleting, will send a message of some kind. If it is kept, then let us please change the guideline described at WP:AUTO#Creating_an_article_about_yourself from "Creating articles about yourself is strongly discouraged", to, "If you would like to create an article about yourself, because in your opinion the evidence indicates that you are important, then create one. All such articles will be handled on a case-by-case basis, in which a debate and arbitration process will determine whether you were correct in your conclusion that you are, in fact, important." - D
- Keep. Programme chair, dozens of invited talks at conference, holds five patents - looks notable to me. She isn't judging her own importance, it has been made verifiably clear that her peers have judged her important. Average Earthman 01:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment But, if so, then let those peers themselves evince that they have "judged her important" by creating a Wikipedia article to honour that importance. Yet so far they have failed to do so, and this subject merely called attention to herself, flouting the objectivity criterion. But notable or not, anyone may perceive evidence from which they conclude they are important. If Wikipedia guidelines are that we create our own pages if we decide that we are important, thereby generating case-by-case-by-case calls for arbitration, then so be it. The current stated guideline, which is quite the reverse, should be revised to reflect this. The need then arises for further guidelines by which one may determine that one's conclusions about one's own importance are proper. Is this viable? Currently, there is clear and simple system in effect. A different system could be considered, but when reduced to practice, either all should feel free to create their own pages if they have concluded they are notable, or, none should create articles about themselves. - D
- Comment Allow me too clarify something that seems to be getting overlooked. I am not challenging (nor endorsing) the encyclopaedia-worthiness of this subject. I am asking whether this process, what we are all doing right now, is the method by which future self-created articles will be decided for inclusion. (And if not, then why for this person and not others?) If yes, then let the process be so, but, let us change the posted guideline to reflect the practised reality. - Democritus
- Comment - WP:AUTO says "Creating articles about yourself is strongly discouraged," not "Creating articles about yourself is forbidden." It also notes that this is "guideline," not "policy." I agree entirely that it's a bad idea, and most such pages wind up getting submitted to AfD. I have done a lot of these myself. I also think there's a reason why this isn't a hard and fast rule, and this situation is an example of why. Tim Pierce 23:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If we are to quote the source, then let us do it more fully: "Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged. If you do create an article about yourself, it will likely be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. If you or your achievements are verifiable and notable; and are thus are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later. People are generally unable to determine whether they are themselves encyclopedic."
By applying these guidelines selectively, as is being proposed, you merely open the door to all comers who have determined, by whatever means, that they are "encyclopedic", to feel free to promote that fact in Wikipedia, resulting in more work and more time spent on maintenance, and in the meantime, further jeopardising the already roundly-debated credibility of this resource.
In summary, if this article, or others like it, stand, then ammending WP:AUTO along the following lines would be appropriate, and would accurately reflect the state of affairs: "As a matter of practise, if you guess correctly that you or your accomplishments will be decided noteworthy, then a self-created article promoting this fact is fine and is not likely to be deleted. Therefore, those who have concluded, based on the available evidence, that they themselves are an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article, need not take "strongly discouraged", as mentioned herein, very seriously." - D
- In most cases, not creating an autobiographical article is good advice, as it is usually a waste of effort and frequently leads to a deletion discussion which can be somewhat humiliating to the author/subject. But it is just not a big deal when it happens, if the subject does happen to meet our notability criteria and the information is verifiable. It may also be noted that as long as articles are written under pseudonym we have no way to know for sure who actually wrote an article. If the author in this case had taken the username User:SuperMarioFan2000, rather than User:Dmcguinness, nobody would have suspected that the author was Deborah McGuinness. For all I know, User:Dmcguinness could be some random computer geek in Taiwan (or at least somebody else at Stanford). I see no reason to change the guideline. u p p l a n d 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - applying this guideline selectively is an inevitable result of using selective language to define it. If the appropriate guideline should be "creating an article about yourself is forbidden," then it would be a very good idea to take this argument to WP:AUTO and obtain a consensus for that statement. But as it stands I think that the complaint about inconsistency is just meaningless. Tim Pierce 16:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed. As the policy states, the artice was listed on articles for deletion, where deletion is not certain (but is rather judged case by case.) Strongly discouraged is not the same thing as prohibited, if you want to actually prohibit get consensus to say so in the policy. CarbonCopy (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If we are to quote the source, then let us do it more fully: "Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged. If you do create an article about yourself, it will likely be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. If you or your achievements are verifiable and notable; and are thus are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later. People are generally unable to determine whether they are themselves encyclopedic."
- Comment - WP:AUTO says "Creating articles about yourself is strongly discouraged," not "Creating articles about yourself is forbidden." It also notes that this is "guideline," not "policy." I agree entirely that it's a bad idea, and most such pages wind up getting submitted to AfD. I have done a lot of these myself. I also think there's a reason why this isn't a hard and fast rule, and this situation is an example of why. Tim Pierce 23:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete. We appear to have a lack of verifiability and the article does not provide any information on how she passes WP:BIO in its present state. Stifle 00:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- External links to the lab at Stanford University count as verifiable to me. Average Earthman 10:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Deathphoenix 16:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Haley Delgado
Where to begin? This person has one hit on Google, the images link to this myspace page (warning: crappy HTML design ahead!), suggesting it's an article made by an admirer (crazy stalker?) of the person, it reeks of POV and CRUFT and is written in first-person, that's about all, I guess. Obli (Talk) 14:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - clearly a case of CSD A 7 JoJan 14:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete post haste. This is not encyclopædia material. -- (aeropagitica) 15:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or Userfy, to JoelRyan. --Deathphoenix 15:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, why is this even here? There's nothing notable about the person, and most of the article only consists of the views of some random angsty teen. And don't userfy, wikipedia isn't myspace. - Bobet 15:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete pretty clearly fails WP:CSD A7. I'm adding the tag now. --Pboyd04 15:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've speedied it per CSD A7 (nn person) --Deathphoenix 17:14, 30 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 keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] David Hall (athlete)
As far as I can see, fails Notability test Sceptre (Talk) 14:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Although it may be notable, the contributor just goes round adding olympic athletes with one line Sceptre (Talk) 16:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - doesn't appear to have been a notable athlete. -- (aeropagitica) 15:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep won an olympic medal, thats notable enough for me. --Pboyd04 15:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, winning an olympic medal is a notable achievement which is easily verified, since all of the medalists are listed on olympic.org. - Bobet 16:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. Olympic medallist. Punkmorten 17:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Our friends in the substub club may be annoying to work with at times, but the correct answer is to expand and cleanup if notable. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, as obviously notable athlete. Carioca 18:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions.
- Keep all Olympic medalists. --Rob 18:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- The 1900 games weren't the huge thing they are now, but winning an Olympic medal is a decent claim for notability. Average Earthman 00:06, 31 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Soulwork
Advertising. Tim Pierce 15:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Niz 15:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn company using WP to advertise. -- (aeropagitica) 15:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Stifle 00:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NStorms
Yet another attempt to promote a new (and thus nn) MMPORG. Can we have {{nn-mmporg}} sometime soon ... very soon? Daniel Case 15:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Niz 15:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - the MMPORG doesn't appear to be notable. -- (aeropagitica) 15:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Stifle 00:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedied. r3m0t talk 18:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chevra
Doesnt assert the notability, as per WP:MUSIC GeeJo (t) (c) 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Has this band done anything of note? If so, include the information to justify the page; if not, delete. -- (aeropagitica) 15:20, 30 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 already merged and redirected. The Land 20:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Curse of Shareef Abdur-Rahim
I cannot see any reason for this article to be in Wikipedia. There is no google result for "Shareef Abdur Raheem" and "curse", so this seems to be a purely invented concept by the article creator. Jfiling 01:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Edit: I spelled "Rahim" wrong in Google, and I apologize for my tone above. Jfiling 19:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Actually it brings up 423 results for me, but as we all know the google test isn't everything. I did find at least one mention on nba.com to his supposed curse, but I haven't really done enough research to come to an informed decision as of yet - no vote for now. --Bachrach44 03:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain I'm the creator of the page, and I can assure you that I didn't make it up. :) This particular curse is oft-discussed among NBA fans, particularly of the teams Abdur-Rahim has played for. (Like articles on the Curse of the Bambino and other more well-known hexes in sports, this article does not attempt to take a stand on whether the curse is correct, only to document a phenomenon in NBA fandom and sporting culture). That said--and this is why I abstain rather than vote keep on a page I have created--verifiability remains an issue. While sportswriters and others have made throwaway comments on the curse in articles on other topics, and message boards (an unacceptable source, for sure--aggregating the commentary in message boards, if we accept their contents as valid, strikes me as original research) contain reams of info on the topic, nobody of note has written about the curse in any detail--at least that I can find. For that reason, I abstain and wish the community consensus to decide if what's out there is sufficient to meet WP:V and WP:NOR. --EngineerScotty 03:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge As a compromise, how about we merge with Shareef Abdur-Rahim. Currently the page has a brief mention of the curse, but I think a section would be apropriate. His unusually bad luck is certainly notable and not OR, and I have found more instances of people (sports columnists and whatnot) referring to it as a curse, even if only casually. --Bachrach44 03:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge This is a good idea. Jfiling 08:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per above. --Pboyd04 16:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge - This doesn't warrant a separate article when it can be contained within a page about the man himself. -- (aeropagitica) 17:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Mergeing sounds good to me. We probably want to keep [[Category:curses]] on the redirect page though. --EngineerScotty 19:11, 30 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 redirect. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] James E. West (inventor)
I created it unaware of existing article "james edward maceo west", which I've since updated Onceler 18:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to James Edward Maceo West (for information on how to redirect, read Wikipedia:Redirect)--Hansnesse 20:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Redirect original author nominated. --Pboyd04 16:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to save the confusion of other WP users in the future. -- (aeropagitica) 17:16, 30 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 Keep. Jaranda wat's sup 01:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Jason David Frank
vanity tv character page?
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- speedy keep. Actor with reasonable IMDB entry MNewnham 17:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The person seems to be a noted actor and martial artist. The article needs to be copyedited to bring it up to standard, particularly the section on 'his own brand of American Karate', whatever that means. -- (aeropagitica) 17:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Never a fan of the guy -- Eddie 17:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I aint a fan either but....he's a power ranger ya knaw??! Jcuk 22:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Even if one were to argue that having a major role in a Power Rangers series doesn't count as notability because it's Power Rangers rather than a show aimed at adults -- not that I would argue that, but if one were to argue that, he's still had a major role in multiple Power Rangers series. Clearly notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:27, 31 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 delete'. Vote count is 3 delete/1 rewrite/1 redirect. After reviewing the article, I think that rewriting this article means discarding the entire content. "...thenceforth, they were called Bart Alton, or "Bartaltón"" convinces me of that. Perhaps a redirect is possible, but I am not sure if an article could be placed at this title, and if so, we don't want to put a redirect here. If anyone wishes to place a redirect here they may do so, but I will decline to do it myself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mayorcans
This article does not meet the requirements for a Wikipedia article. An article on the Mayorcans should be rewritten from scratch. Mdrine 05:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rewrite I don't think it really merits deletion, but definately needs a rewrite. --Pboyd04 16:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Nothing in this makes any sense at all. MNewnham 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rewrite If these people existed at all then the author of the page should use some reference material in order to give fundamental information - geographical location, dates, notable events. If nothing is done, this page should be deleted. -- (aeropagitica) 17:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Mallorca --Revolución (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Time has passed and no references have been provided. The text is borderline nonsense and strongly suggests a hoax. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rio Plato (Brazil)
I think this is a hoax. These two google searches [13][14] bring up nothing but the Wikipedia article itself. The article itself said that this case was highly noted among sociologists.--Hraefen 22:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 16:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Modify At the very least, the author or some knowledgable person should provide citations for studies of the community. The text of the article as it stands looks like a troll. If the assertions cannot be substantiated then the article should be deleted. -- (aeropagitica) 17:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, as obvious hoax. The name of the place is not even in Portuguese language. Carioca 18:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Right, the name is the first thing that tipped me off.--Hraefen 19:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete hoax --Revolución (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per the above, and I'm closing this. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 10:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Umbaba
- Hey I'm a designer new to london and i found the article very useful in looking for a location for my first fashion show.
- I believe it to be simply a little far too descriptive yet fully informative, how dow you describe accuratly a commercial entitiy without unintentionnally glorifying it?--; 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- nothing but an ad. BL kiss the lizard 00:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- oops sorry! BL kiss the lizard 23:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn club. --Pboyd04 16:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Rewrite This appears to be nothing more than crude advertising. Restating the facts in a neutral manner will be enough. -- (aeropagitica) 17:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence that this is a particularly notable or influential nightclub. And no, having some footballers show up occasionally doesn't count. Average Earthman 01:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wasn't it the location for the FHM 100 Sexiest Women party last year?
- I think it's more well known for it's extravagant cocktail menu like the Magie Noir, last thing I heard was that it was pretty sought after.
- The club has made an impact on a pretty bland scene by being the first to go for an African theme, Africa has always been quite an ugly word when it came to entertainment. Umbaba makes it beautiful again
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Venezia Pizza
delete I may be out of the loop as far as the popularity of this site or these guys but this page seems like it's just an add for their site--Looper5920 10:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete It's not an ad, but if you don't think it's worth putting here, just get delete it, just give me time to copy it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixellated (talk • contribs) 10:28, 30 December 2005
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete just because some website played a prank on them doesn't make them notable. --Pboyd04 16:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This is nn. -- (aeropagitica) 17:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Pboyd04 & (aeropagitica). There is also an associated article, Shimrach, that needs to be deleted if this one goes. It was self blanked by the creater so I think it can be speedy deleted as {{db-empty}} if this AfD succeeds. -- JLaTondre 00:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable and an advertisement. I'm closing this and I'll take care of Shimrach. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] War pigs (disambiguation)
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep valid disambig page. --Pboyd04 16:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep perfectly acceptable disambiguation page. -- (aeropagitica) 17:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep good disambig - FrancisTyers 20:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, nothing wrong with this entry, and "very confused entry candidate for Afd" is not a valid nomination. Punkmorten 20:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as perfectly good dab, and I'm closing this. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; The Land 19:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Medical students disease
Neologism? Sceptre (Talk) 16:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Good question! In the vernacular, it is almost used as a catch phrase List_of_catch_phrases between people who know/share the insight. But I don't think the sentiment is of resent origine... I would not be surprised if the ancient Egyptians had an equivalent term when referring to their nuevo cranial trepanners. Like they thought they needed a hole in the head!!!! Oh sorry; I just could not resist that! --Aspro 22:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or Transwiki if someone can show wide use. --Pboyd04 16:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not 100% sure "medical students' disease" is what it's called, but something can be made of this. It's a well-known phenomenon. For decades it's been proverbial that medical students imagine they are experiencing the symptoms of diseases that they read about. The article could definitely be a keeper if anyone actually wanted to do any work on it. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a neologism. If kept, move to Medical student's disease. A Google Books search turns up a book which in turn contains a 1964 reference, below. Assuming the reference is valid, to me, that nails it: it's not a neologism, it's recognized in medical literature, it was called specifically "Medical student's disease" at least as far back as 1964.
-
- Woods, SM, Natterson, J. Silverman J: Medical student's disease: hypochondriasis in medical education. J. Med. Educ. 41:785-790 (1966).
- unsigned (probably accidentally) Comment and Reference from Dpbsmith --CastAStone 23:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Yeah, thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Woods, SM, Natterson, J. Silverman J: Medical student's disease: hypochondriasis in medical education. J. Med. Educ. 41:785-790 (1966).
- Merge with Hypochondria as the title of the article seems demotic and not established in the literature. -- (aeropagitica) 17:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I've now found three references in "the literature" that use the specific phrase "medical student's disease." Well, OK, sometimes it's a possessive plural, "medical students' disease." The convention is to use the most common name, so if kept, demotic or not that's where it should go, with redirects as needed from from nosophobia, hypochondriasis of medical students, medicalstudentitis, etc. Hodges (2004) (see citation in article) has a section which opens:
- Medical Students' Disease
- A similar emergence of the body in the medical classroom is illustrated by the so-called "medical students' disease" literature. This "disease" was defined as follows: "Medical students' disease occurs when, in the process of studying an illness, medical students become overly focused on their own bodily symptoms and may falsely believe that they in fact have the illness being studied" ... the first descriptions of medical students' disease appeared in the 1960s.
- I've now found three references in "the literature" that use the specific phrase "medical student's disease." Well, OK, sometimes it's a possessive plural, "medical students' disease." The convention is to use the most common name, so if kept, demotic or not that's where it should go, with redirects as needed from from nosophobia, hypochondriasis of medical students, medicalstudentitis, etc. Hodges (2004) (see citation in article) has a section which opens:
- Comment I always just assumed this phenomenon was an adjunct of the widely accepted 'premed's aren't very bright' theorem, perhaps a merge is in order--63.22.94.162 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It should be categorised under something like psychology (as opposed to psychiatry) as its a normal response.
- At the moment though, it reads a little rough but its a good start as it puts it into context. Don't merge with hypochondria as one could argue that there not quite the same thing. Being a commonly observed (and experienced) phenomena means: that this article has every right to be taken seriously.--Aspro 19:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Very well known. -- JJay 23:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep As per Dpbsmith --CastAStone 23:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep: nothing but anecdotal evidence, but this is frequently discussed in my contacts with docs and med students. --Justin Eiler 00:02, 31 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zerotrace's Internet Hideout
Non notable website, with coveted 1 google link J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 16:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is my website, and if you follow the link you will see this, I have submitted it to Google recently, but it can take time to appear so I have been informed. Although I did not write the content for this Wiki, I do allow the use of it, and I will watch over it frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.221.216 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 December 2005
- Delete Alexa rank of 1,152,842. Notability first wikipedia second. --Pboyd04 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- I did write the content of this Wiki, I've left a message on your talk page JWestbrook, I apologise for my inability to properly use Wiki and my confusion, deletion and re-creation of the article. Both me and the admin are in agreement that this version can stay (see above) and I feel it represents the site well and will prove useful for users interested in ZTIH —Preceding unsigned comment added by RemaskedFoe (talk • contribs) 16:45, 30 December 2005
- Delete non-notable website. -- (aeropagitica) 17:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Not Notable yet maybe someday it wil be but for now Delete. Deathawk 19:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not encyclopedic. I wish the creator well, and hope that someday his site will be encyclopedically notable. FCYTravis 07:53, 31 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blue-yellow
Badly written, rather incoherent. Describes "Blue-Yellow" as a "bluish-yelloish color" (sic). AFAIK there's no such thing. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep i would say blue-yellow is a color. --Jingofetts 16:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Cannot find any definitions in Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, or Google define: Google lists "BlueYellow" as a trademark for a turf-laying system, and "blue/yellow" as the description of a class of photographic filters. I don't see anything for "blue-yellow". -- MatthewDBA 16:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Can you find something on Blue-Yellow? --Jingofetts 16:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete someone correct me if I'm wrong but don't blue and yellow make green? --Pboyd04 16:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- yes. but this is a color. --Jingofetts 16:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Do you have an external reference for that? -- MatthewDBA 16:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Delete There was a long discussion on similar colours (e.g. Chili powder (color) back in end-September) and most were deleted. Dlyons493 Talk 16:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Blue-Yellow&sa=N&tab=wi
- http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Blue-Yellow&sa=N&tab=iw
- color blue yellow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingofetts (talk • contribs)
- Delete: per nom.--Esprit15d 17:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Blue-Yellow" is either white or green. Delete. --' 17:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete There is no evidence provided for this 'colour' existing on a colour chart or in the EM spectrum. The author should either provide such evidence to justify the existence of the page or delete it. -- (aeropagitica) 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable, until it actually shows something that is blue-yellow. Please add an image, link to an existing one, or use a HTML RGB colour span. Otherwise I will consider this an impossible colour. — JIP | Talk 18:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, cannot be clearly defined. (Updated comments, keyboard short on edit summary) Ajwebb 18:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Green --Revolución (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Very Strong Delete. Patent nonsense. Blue and Yellow are primary colors (of pigment) with a wide range of colors in between, in particular, as noted by others, green. Logophile 01:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, hoax. This is beyond unverfiable, it's impossible according to the way human color vision works (see Opponent process). And unless I'm reading the history wrong, the original author also tagged it for cleanup at the same time, as well as voting to keep above. Scam, in other words. rodii 01:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Also, check out Jingofetts's user and talk pages. Craziness. rodii
- Delete per nomination, and recommend to bundle all the non-notable-color-AFDs together. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 03:10Z
- Delete. NeoJustin 17:57, December 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete patent nonsense. Stifle 00:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 protect against recreation. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] G. Reeves Project
Appears to be a personal project. Non-notable [15]. - Liberatore(T) 16:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn as the geocities website points out nicely. --Pboyd04 16:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. -- (aeropagitica) 17:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. A very similar article "George Reeves Project" was speedied, reverted, and is now protected. That would qualify this article for speedy also, but I would prefer to give the article creator the chance to make his case here. Herostratus 18:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not delete" To most of you, you are not familiar with the life of George Reeves, and as far as everything else goes this should be called George Reeves Project. As far as non-acceptable, may be some words might not make sense, but feel free to correct if something is out of line, of course, as far as deleting it, if you are so ignorant about facts, delete your own garbage you think it's important you posted over last few weeks or corrected and most people dont care about those anyways, this is historical!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Projects (talk • contribs)
- Comment Case made. Herostratus 21:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I can find no relevant Google references to this project outside Wikipedia itself. --Metropolitan90 00:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, and protect from recreation if it is the same as the other protected-from-recreation article.. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 03:12Z
- Delete. NeoJustin 17:57, December 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as nn. Could possibly be mentioned in George Reeves. Bjelleklang - talk 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Closing comment: I have blanked and protected the page against recreation as per Quarl's suggestion. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Naveedism
As far as I can tell, a made-up "liberal Eastern school of thought". Zero Google hits. It's a hoax or a personal philosophy of the author, maybe. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Expand If this is an Eastern philosophical school, then it should be referenced and given the appropriate citation. As it stands, the article should be deleted. -- (aeropagitica) 17:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Zero google hits, looks like a complete hoax. --Ragib 21:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 01:39Z
- Delete per Quarl. Stifle 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Light-Silver
Non-existant, unencyclopedic. Author imagines new colors and creates articles on them, as with Blue-yellow. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Pablo "imagines" no? --Jingofetts 16:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC) they are colors KEEP. expand i needed. and image.
- Delete Wikipedia is not inifinite and in theory there are an infite number of colors. --Pboyd04 16:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- so your saying Light Silver is not a color you got to be ... light and silver. comment.
- Delete color cruft...there are 16.7 million 24-bit colors in the naked city, we don't need to know their stories. Endomion 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom.--Esprit15d 17:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete As above, so many colours, they don't all need a page to themselves. -- (aeropagitica) 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 18:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. PJM 18:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --Revolución (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Sceptre (Talk) 21:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Very Strong Delete. Is there a way to stop contributors from wasting everyone's time with inane articles like this one? Logophile 01:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, and recommend to bundle all the non-notable-color-AFDs together.. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 03:09Z
- Delete. NeoJustin 17:58, December 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Spank, Ban. *gives Logophile a relaxing neck rub* rodii 19:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete with a possible BJAODN for the whole article series. Stifle 00:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Done for this one! --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rusty Brown (color)
Unencyclopedic. Author creates tiny articles for every color he can imagine and doesn't understand policy. See above. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- encyclopedic entry. --Jingofetts 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC) colors matter in the world we live in pablo.
- Delete: per nom.--Esprit15d 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Pboyd04 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- (aeropagitica) 18:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 18:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as meaningless. Give us a Pantone number and it may be obvious but something seen on a car's 'bummer' (sic)? Eddie.willers 18:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --Revolución (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and hope he doesn't start writing Category:Integers stubs instead... :) Segv11 (talk/contribs) 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. per above. I'm going to have to take a break from Wikipedia, as these articles are really annoying me. Logophile 01:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 03:01Z
- Delete per nom. NeoJustin 17:58, December 31, 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 keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of ski jumping hills
In theory aren't there hundreds (if not thousands) of ski jumping hills? This doesn't seem like a good encyclopedia entry Esprit15d 17:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The nature and contents of the article do not justify its inclusion in WP. -- (aeropagitica) 18:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Those hills that are used in international competition could be notable. Lbbzman 18:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, like list of football stadiums by capacity. Needs expansion. Punkmorten 20:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, since it could easily be expanded, and just hasn't been given a chance (it was afd'd 2 minutes after creation). - Bobet 22:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep and expand. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - why nominate something so quickly? Ski-jumping is a major sport in some countries and a list of venues used for the World Cup competition is obvious information to create. Jameswilson 00:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and make it quite clear that only World Cup competition venues are to be included. Average Earthman 00:24, 31 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 Delete. enochlau (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scottish & Newscatle
It isn't a major brewing group, Its a typo for Scottish & Newcastle. I dont believe that this even rates a redirect MNewnham 17:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Scottish & Newcastle. What I find funny is that the author consistently spelled it "Newscatle" in the article but still spelled the external link to Scottish & Newcastle correctly. — JIP | Talk 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Typographical error by author. Should not be a redirect page. -- (aeropagitica) 18:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete without Redirect. A typo that may never be reporduced (!) Eddie.willers 18:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as uncommon typo. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 02:54Z
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bigsmall
a neologism
- Delete. Gazpacho 17:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- (aeropagitica) 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 18:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn neologism from one advertisement. --Pboyd04 19:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete from a citreon advert, I think. nn neologism Sceptre (Talk) 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism + advertising = neolotising. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, ad. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable recent neologism. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 02:52Z
- Delete per nom. NeoJustin 17:59, December 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It sounds a little bit like a Newspeak word, don't you think? Obli (Talk) 21:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I think Newspeak would have it "largeunlarge". Oh wait, I see. You mean doublethink. :) --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cerebration
Non-notable. Delete. utcursch | talk 11:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
This AfD nomination did not gather enough votes, relisting. Please add your comments below this line. — JIP | Talk 18:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This does not appear to be a notable academic journal. -- (aeropagitica) 18:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - the original editor has created a duplicate article here: Cerebration. --Muchness 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've redirected Cerebration (India) to Cerebration (the cleaned up duplicate article) and added the AFD tag to that article. No vote. —Cleared as filed. 05:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep - website fails notability guidelines (alexa ranking 3,757,702) but contains no spam and includes notable figures on its editorial board: Bapsi Sidhwa, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Bapsi Sidhwa. --Muchness 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:04, Dec. 31, 2005
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peter Winer
Self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Mr Winer doesn't appear to be a notable individual for a WP article. -- (aeropagitica) 18:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Userfy or delete. --Muchness 18:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. PJM 18:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn --Pboyd04 19:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 02:52Z
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] American Lift S.A.
No habla Espagnol, but this is advertising MNewnham 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn company. -- (aeropagitica) 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as above. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as foreign language advertising. Briefly, it's about an Argentinian elevator manufacturer and how great they are and how you may contact them. Eddie.willers 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. PJM 18:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as foreign language. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: foreign language is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Non-english articles should be listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for translation. — TheKMantalk 18:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertising of non-notable company. — TheKMantalk 18:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Potters Keys
Non-notable fan forum (http://www.potterskeys.com/), Alexa rank > 2,200,000 (!). Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete only 1400 forum users nn per WP:WEB --Pboyd04 19:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The fan forum adds nothing to the discussion of the Harry Potter mythos. -- (aeropagitica) 22:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --Closedmouth 15:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The last two votes have been ignored as sock puppets, but there is still no clear consensus to delete. — JIP | Talk 10:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Patrick Wilken
Was tagged for speedy deletion as nn-bio by User:Peri, but does not qualify. Bringing it to AfD instead to respect the wishes of the original tagger. No vote. howcheng {chat} 18:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete 2 papers no assertion of notability, seems to qualify as nn-bio to me. --Pboyd04 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete; Doesn't meet the criteria for notability. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Revise I can't see how this academic is notable from reading the text of the article. If his notable status & achievements could be brought to the fore then the article would merit inclusion. As it stands, delete. -- (aeropagitica) 22:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems clearly to be notable. Are we looking at the same article? He seems to be very active in studying consciousness, and has edited an online journal that is at least marginally interesting. James James 22:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Work published in peer-reviewed journals, founding an online journal and notable involvement in the society for the study of consciousness clearly make a case for notability. --EncephalonSeven
15:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC) - Delete per WP:BIO. Many people have had work published in journals. Books are required. Stifle 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Founder of only international organisation promoting scientific study of consciousness, only on-line journal promoting consciousness research. Disagree with Stifle (above); no-one who is a serious scientific researcher is judged on their books but instead on peer-reviewed literature. Books entirely irrelevant. Dupin
- Keep. Agree with Dupin. As the founder of the ASSC and Psyche - both of which are important and were at the time of foundation truly visionary contributions to the promotion of the interdisciplinary academic study of consciousness, he is clearly notable. Moreover, his publications in peer-reviewed journals prove his seriousness as an academic and he is currently editing an important book.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tim Bayne
Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Peri as nn-bio, but does not qualify. Bringing it to AfD instead. No vote/. howcheng {chat} 18:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete 4 papers, no assertion of notability, seems to qualify as nn-bio to me. --Pboyd04 19:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable academic. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This academic does not appear to have made a notable contribution towards the understanding of his branch of philosophy as of yet. -- (aeropagitica) 22:45, 30 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Andrew Gallagher
Worthy of speedy, but claims to be 'Jonah Hill' the actor. However this person was born on 11/15/86 and Jonah Hill was born on 12/20/83 according to imdb MNewnham 18:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO. Very hoaxy. PJM 18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete hoax --Pboyd04 19:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This bio is a hoax, if not a troll. -- (aeropagitica) 22:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable vanity biography, and hoax. Possibly speedyable since the claim to notability isn't credible. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 02:17Z
- Speedy delete this is clearly a hoax and vanity. -- MicahMN | μ 17:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Joel Q. Grim Memorial Challenge
This is a non-notable trivia challenge with a handful of participants. Jasmol 18:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete seems nn. --Pboyd04 20:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable trivia challenge. -- (aeropagitica) 22:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. 1 google hit. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 02:16Z
- Keep Just because you have not heard of it does not mean that it is non-notable. --Joe 18:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment As the author of the article, perhaps you can provide evidence of it's notability. Ohnoitsjamie 18:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- What sort of evidence would suffice?--Joe 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sustained media attention, for example. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 20:34Z
- From WP:Notability: Notability is related to importance. Articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people. Notability is somewhat related to vanity guidelines. Wikipedia should not contain any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author. Ohnoitsjamie 20:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- What sort of evidence would suffice?--Joe 20:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment As the author of the article, perhaps you can provide evidence of it's notability. Ohnoitsjamie 18:44, 31 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 deleted as vandalism.
[edit] Isn't Taunton Boring
Bad joke from 1kirk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Even if true (and 1kirk has yet to make any factual edits), there are 0 Google results. Joe D (t) 19:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete should be deleted because there are no google hits.--BUF4Life 19:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this is not even close to being notable --Liface 20:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - unverifiable, probable hoax/nonsense, nn. --Muchness 20:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Hoax, troll, nothing of note. -- (aeropagitica) 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable, probable hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 02:08Z
- Delete as unfunny fiction. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is one of the world's most powerful information tools, despite what the bozos in North Korea say (they were especially harsh after the Seigenthaler flap). So how do some people use it? Like this. Kiss it bye-bye. - Lucky 6.9 01:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Grounding
I'm somewhat ambivalent about this page; it seems to be a collection of dictionary defs that belong in Wikitionary. However, there is some minimal content that seems to go beyond being simple dictionary definitions. In any case, at least some of the defs should be transwiki'd -- Bletch 20:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and fix up per nom. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki a list of dicdefs does not an article make. --Pboyd04 22:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Move Dictionary definitions belong on Wiktionary. -- (aeropagitica) 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Grounding is a legitimate action when building an electrical circuit. --Ancheta Wis 17:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - IMO, the only part of the article that seems to be anything more than a dictionary definition is the part that pertains to disciplining children, but even that part is pretty anemic. The others should definitely be sent off to Wikitionary. --Bletch 22:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- keep But should have the links put in, even if they are redirects to the most appropriate page. It needs a disambiguation page, and in the current absence of pages on what it links to, it does the job. But it ashgould certainly have page amde, even if they do not exopand much on what it says on the disambig. Dolive21 17:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus to delete, though very narrowly. The Land 20:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mariah Stanley
Originally, this article was speedy deleted as a copyvio problem. Now, after arriving at DRV, it has been rewritten, but the subject is still a non-notable young lady. Although an IMDb entry exists, it is not extensive. Also, please note that the article was first begun by its subject, raising some WP:AUTO concerns. Xoloz 21:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep has an IMDb entry (however small) and seems to be making a name for herself Jcuk 21:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and try again when she actually has made a name for herself. She seems to be on a publicity drive, since the imdb entry was written by her too, and she even paid for the inclusion of a headshot. 468 google hits [20] seems to indicate she has a long way to go before being notable though. - Bobet 22:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Pure fluff. Atrian 22:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete She may be game but Miss Stanley doesn't appear to have achieved anything of note to date. -- (aeropagitica) 23:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Articles are for people who've already made it, not those who are still climbing the ladder. Sliggy 23:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions.
- Keep for appearance on national show, and lessor local appearances. Much of content will have to be removed for lack of verifiability, but imdb verifies key point. --Rob 04:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep She has an IMDB entry, so that's one good reason for keeping it. But I guess she's just not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. When she's finally made a name for herself (and I know she will), then I guess the article can be rewritten. Fanficgurl 12:57 31, December 2005 (UTC)
- Fanficgurl, can I suggest you check you are logged in before you vote or leave a comment. It appears from this that you weren't logged in, and you appear as an "anonymous" user as a result. Ideally, you only want to sign a comment with a user-id, if you're logged-in under that user-id. --Rob 06:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. IMDb article clinches it, and until she hits it big, I guess this article will stay small. --King of All the Franks 06:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete ... an article trying to pass the notability hurdle ... being a "local finalist' for Star Search & American Juniors is not notable. Being a "contestant" on America's Most Talented Kid isn't either. She wasn't a finalist, she wasn't a winner, she didn't go on to be "discovered" as a result of the show. Wikipedia is not a means to get noticed; its the other way around. Best of luck to Mariah ... per Sliggy... an article if fine after notability achieved. —ERcheck @ 19:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Note that her imdb bio is an autobiographical entry. The imdb entry is for the 2003-2004 NBC show. The show was dropped by NBC and picked up by PAX. According to Mariah's own website, she was a contestant on the 2004 PAX show, not the NBC show. —ERcheck @ 20:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC) (comments revisd for more NPOV ..—ERcheck @ 21:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC) )
- On IMDB, on a personal profile page, for the main/first list of "cast", the *first* year in brackets (displayed immediately afte the show name), is the year of the *show* not the year the person was on it. There is sometimes (not always) an additional note, which shows which year(s) the person was actually on the show. In such cases, both years will show. You'll see many examples of child stars, showing a credit on a show, with the only year displayed, being a year they weren't even born in. This isn't deception, it's just a default display option on imdb. Also, imdb does let in mistakes, but they do actually review changes before adding them (unlike Wikipedia). Feel free to update the article to make clear which version she was on, and how little airtime she had. --Rob 20:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)|
- Thanks for your comment Rob. I've revised my comment above for a more NPOV. —ERcheck @ 21:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- On IMDB, on a personal profile page, for the main/first list of "cast", the *first* year in brackets (displayed immediately afte the show name), is the year of the *show* not the year the person was on it. There is sometimes (not always) an additional note, which shows which year(s) the person was actually on the show. In such cases, both years will show. You'll see many examples of child stars, showing a credit on a show, with the only year displayed, being a year they weren't even born in. This isn't deception, it's just a default display option on imdb. Also, imdb does let in mistakes, but they do actually review changes before adding them (unlike Wikipedia). Feel free to update the article to make clear which version she was on, and how little airtime she had. --Rob 20:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)|
- Comment: Note that her imdb bio is an autobiographical entry. The imdb entry is for the 2003-2004 NBC show. The show was dropped by NBC and picked up by PAX. According to Mariah's own website, she was a contestant on the 2004 PAX show, not the NBC show. —ERcheck @ 20:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC) (comments revisd for more NPOV ..—ERcheck @ 21:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC) )
Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)- Nevermind. I was a bit hasty. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability criteria exists for the purpose of deleting cruft and keeping useful material. This article cannot be said to improve Wikipedia, e.g. only real backlink is from a photo caption. --C S (Talk) 13:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Webcomic. - Mailer Diablo 08:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Icomic
Covered in Webcomic, little content, just a def and a lot of outward links Sceptre (Talk) 21:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, someone's own made up definition for something everyone else calls webcomic. 26300 google hits for icomic, but none that i could see that are actually capitalized in the way emphatically stated in the article, indicating it's not about the same subject. And the article's just a place to include random linkspam. - Bobet 22:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or maybe redirect to Webcomic --Pboyd04 22:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect This appears to be a synonym for Webcomic. -- (aeropagitica) 23:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per Aeropagitica. Stifle 13:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eric pepin
User has removed speedy tags a couple of times now, so I'm bringing this to AfD. Vanity bio (note that the author's name is the same as the website referred to). Google finds 33 links to his page. Also claims to be the inventor of the "first ESP pill". Non-notable. Delete. bikeable (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as {{nn-bio}} and complete bollocks. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 21:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable/vanity page. --IByte 22:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, if his ESP pill really works than he shouldn't need a Wiki page! Atrian 22:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Book in the article is real and available on Amazon --Pboyd04 22:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- hmm, good catch. Evidently self-published ("Higher Balance Publishing"), but the rank is higher than I would expect (67,000 yesterday, 35,000 today). Doesn't change my vote. bikeable (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- good catch on the self published thing this is the only book by that publisher on Amazon. Delete --Pboyd04 23:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unreadable vanity piece. If the ESP pill works, Eric can claim the Randi Prize and become a notable personality. -- (aeropagitica) 23:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 01:44Z
- Delete per Quarl. Stifle 13:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom.--nixie 13:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Catroplia
This page appears to be a hoax. Bill 21:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, not a single result on Google, so unverifiable, probably hoax. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Seymore Butts? Gimme a break. Atrian 22:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete hoax --Pboyd04 23:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete hoax, troll. -- (aeropagitica) 23:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete blatant hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 01:41Z
- Speedy delete per nom. I hate hoaxes. Ifnord 20:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. It does not appear to qualify for speedy deletion per WP:CSD, maybe one of the previous contributors could suggest which criterion it matches? Vandalism? Repost? Stifle 13:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Naveedism
As far as I can tell, a made-up "liberal Eastern school of thought". Zero Google hits. It's a hoax or a personal philosophy of the author, maybe. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Expand If this is an Eastern philosophical school, then it should be referenced and given the appropriate citation. As it stands, the article should be deleted. -- (aeropagitica) 17:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Zero google hits, looks like a complete hoax. --Ragib 21:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 01:39Z
- Delete per Quarl. Stifle 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bamboo (lyricist)
I tagged this for speedy, which was removed by Kappa with a note, please read the article, so I'm bringing it over here. NN rapper, no major recording contract, claims of awards unverifiable, less than 400 relevant google hits, fails WP:MUSIC MNewnham 22:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC) "
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Kappa 22:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)"
- Copyvio of http://www.kenyanese.org/profile.php/artists/bamboo/ Kappa 22:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The page is a cut-and-paste, as stated above. Not required on WP. -- (aeropagitica) 23:05, 30 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Arcecatization
Been here since July, and is nonsense. I almost moved it to Wiktionary, but doule-checked--Dangherous 22:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Perhaps the page is the authors' attempt a self-reflexive humour? -- (aeropagitica) 23:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable unverifiable recent neologism. 11 Google hits -- mostly Wikipedia, plus a few forum posts by "arcecat". —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 01:29Z
- Delete --NaconKantari 01:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Quarl. Stifle 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Onlineuknews
Same as ONLINEUK and same author; main external link gives a "not found" in a free web space provider. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Advertising. -- (aeropagitica) 23:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn website --Pboyd04 23:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --NaconKantari 23:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per above --HappyCamper 23:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- delete as VSCA J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 00:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. NeoJustin 00:38, December 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete advert. Stifle 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Three delete vs. two merge votes, but User:(aeropagitica) said something quite important: "If this is an acronym at all". It appears to be made up for Wikipedia, considering that Google cannot verify this acronym's existence. [21] Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BBLASPID
Yahoo! search engine test fails --Dangherous 22:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge If this is an acronym at all, it can be entered on to List_of_acronyms_and_initialisms:_B rather than having its own page. -- (aeropagitica) 22:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete fails google test just wikipedia. --Pboyd04 23:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable unverifiable recent neologism. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 01:15Z
- Merge per aeropagitica. Stifle 13:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Faith-promoting history (LDS)
I'm not sure about this one, what do others think? It's little more than a dic def, but I guess it is possible it could be expanded somehow. --Quasipalm 22:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect towards History_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement as it is practically a synonym rather than a definition. -- (aeropagitica) 22:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It has been expanded greatly and become worthwhile Cyberevil 17:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - brand new article about a current topic in LDS culture, original author is expanding like mad. Although a little POV, it is a good topic for discussion. WBardwin 01:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep good article about a genuine phenomenon Jcuk 10:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge I am the author of the article in question. I would support merging it into the History_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement if it does not seem appropriate to have it as an article that stands on its own. (Also, sorry for deleting the original request to delete...I saw the code entered in the article's edit page and didn't know what it meant) --Wandering scribe 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect towards History_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement for the same reason as (aeropagitica) CJewell 18:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Www.weebls-suff.com
Nn website, only 16 Google hits. I vote delete. King of Hearts | (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I see no point in retaining this page as it is only advertising the website. -- (aeropagitica) 23:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 23:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, but maybe I'm prejudiced, since links to this site were being used to vandalize my Talk page a few days ago. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Move to Weebls-Stuff. The site does pass WP:WEB, as I think it has gained national media attention (MTV), and Badger Badger Badger. The Alexa ranking is 13k at the moment, but it does have a forum population of over 10,000. Seems to be a typo on the creators behalf Sceptre (Talk) 23:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sustained media attention is required. Being mentioned once doesn't cut it, stations have hours of broadcast time to fill, and it's pretty easy to get mentioned once. Average Earthman 00:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn ad. --Pboyd04 23:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --NaconKantari 00:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 01:10Z
- First, the article is a typo, the website is Weebls-Stuff, not "Suff." The website itself is extremely notable, both with a number of notable internet memes (Badger Badger Badger, Magical Trevor, Weebl and Bob), and advertising for Samsung. So this should redirect to the correct page. --badlydrawnjeff 18:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete advert. Stifle 13:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete We've already got Weebl's cartoons. Obli (Talk) 19:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. spam. Incognito 05:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. CDC (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] James Gregory (mineralogist)
Most of this article is obviously inaccurate. I don't know if there ever was a mineralogist named James Gregory; but if there was, I don't think he was notable enough for an article; and I can't find any information about him through a Google search. --TantalumTelluride 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:Verifiability.--TantalumTelluride 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)- Delete possible hoax and definately unveriiable. --Pboyd04 23:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep There was a 19th Century mineralogist called James Gregory; he set up Gregory, Bottley and Lloyd in London, which has a website : [25]. The claims in the article need to be referenced and the relevent works cited to justify their inclusion. -- (aeropagitica) 23:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I found several references, for example: adiamondisforever.com. Deleting this entry as a hoax would certainly be a "Gregory"! -- DS1953 talk 23:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Try this Google search.
- Question: Are the James Gregory mentioned here and the J.R. Gregory here the same person? --TantalumTelluride 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The statement about the ostriches and the 83 1/2 carat diamond sounded so ludicrous that I thought the article was a hoax. Maybe the article is actually true afterall. --TantalumTelluride 02:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete appears unverifiable and possible hoax. Stifle 13:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Slick Vik
nn 15 year old musician, Delete -- DS1953 talk 23:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't appear to be a notable person. Claims about platinum-selling albums need to be verified. School newspaper critical appraisal is below the standards of WP for notability. -- (aeropagitica) 23:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete no records on amazon no allmusic entry. --Pboyd04 23:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable musical group. —Quarl (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. *drew 05:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Quarl. Stifle 13:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
