Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 16

< February 15	February 17 >

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summoning Chess

Non notable chess varient invented by the article's author. Delete. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Whats so bad about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Team.chaotix (talk • contribs)
- We can't just put an article up about every game or game variation someone invents. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In other words, subjects should be noteworthy in some way. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Repeat after me: Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day!. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable. --cesarb 00:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Sounds like an interesting game. However, it should be on some webpage somewhere, not in wikipedia. -- Nortonew 00:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. ikkyu2 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and WP:NFT. dbtfz ^talk 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Sigh delete. WP:NFT. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Hbackman 06:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Minor chess variation; article isn't written to WP standards, so perhaps the author should look at the manual of style before developing an article in the sandbox. (aeropagitica) 06:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Bad ideas 07:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, non-notable game --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per noms James Kendall [talk] 12:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete non notable and away from WP standards. Afonso Silva 13:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The article itself admits it was made up recently, and "at school one day". Batmanand 15:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 20:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per how many games have "Credits"? --Jay(Reply) 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn kiddy invention.Blnguyen 02:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. VegaDark 09:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Revert--AlF 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Help:Edit conflict. D e ath phoenix 17:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflict

Was a cross-namespace redirect, then got changed into an interwiki redirect, and finally into a soft redirect to meta. Should be deleted for the same reasons cross-namespace redirects on the article namespace are deleted. cesarb 00:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert to a cross-namespace re-direct. Georgia guy 00:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Specifically, a re-direct to Help:Edit conflict. Georgia guy 00:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: It seems like we disambiguate for project spaces when there is something real in the namespace. I don't know how this policy applies when there is no non-wiki article to put there. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Help:Edit conflict. Angr/talk 09:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as above. Batmanand 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. We have separate namespaces to keep things that matter only to the Wikipedia separated from articles. As a redirect, it defies that. - Liberatore(T) 18:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete What Liberatore said. Gerard Foley 21:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Same thing as above: edit conflict, especially in this redirect, refers to Wikipedia related information. --Jay(Reply) 21:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Leave as redirect, either to meta or to Help. Redirects are cheap. Additionally, this should be on WP:RFD, not here. Stifle 12:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was a problem for me: it's a redirect, so it should go to RfD; but it's a soft redirect, so probably RfD wouldn't accept it, so it should go to AfD; except that it's not an article, so it should go to MfD; and we also have CSD, PROD and IAR. It sort of fell in an area which is not exactly for any of of the processes, but I had to chose one. --cesarb 17:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Stifle. --Billpg 11:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Liberatore. —Ruud 01:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete all obnoxious "soft redirects". — Feb. 21, '06 [19:02] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Delete per Liberatore. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exclamation Records

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 00:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ~~No such website.~~ Yep, there is a website. I still believe that this article is irrelevant for Wikipedia. -- Wikipedical 00:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom (though I was able to view the website). OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete I think this isn't even a real label Ruby 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. dbtfz ^talk 02:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, non-notable and non-verifiable record label --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn. Batmanand 15:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 20:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Non notable. --Jay(Reply) 21:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corpsel

Unable to verify, does not Google, likely hoax. Accurizer 00:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Unverifiable and of little note. Junk it along with A. Clowser.ikkyu2 (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. -- Wikipedical 00:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete sick hoax. Camillus (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoax Ruby 01:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. dbtfz ^talk 04:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete obvious hoax. The "celebrity physicist" looks like he is heading for deletion as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, non-verifiable and a hoax --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete; whenever I'm given lots of adjectives about how great/mysterious/dubious/whatever a thing is, and next-to-nothing about what it actually is, I suspect hoax. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
{{hoax}} undefined Avi 20:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete {{hoax}} Avi 20:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Another one in the Test Article bin. Just gross. --Jay(Reply) 21:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Can power be derived from this dead hoax? Avalon 09:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Creator's request - and there have been no objections here. -Doc ^ask? 17:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazism in relation to other concepts (disambiguation)

This should be a category, or a list of 'see also's on the Nazism article - not a dab. Dabs by definition disambiguate words and phrases which can serveral unconnected meanings. -Doc ^ask? 00:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete although I disagree with the nom's suggestion to create a new list. I think Template:Nazism works just fine. -- Wikipedical 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedical Ruby 01:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per below. ikkyu2 (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Keep until someone does the work suggested by nom. Deleting articles on the basis that someone else, someday, should merge or replicate their content somewhere else strikes me as inappropriate, especially since the work that the nominator suggests and does not do becomes much harder after the article is deleted. Template:Nazism is fine, but does not at this time include every article linked from the nominated page. ikkyu2 (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I just updated the Template. It now includes the two subjects Nazi mysticism and Germanic Neopaganism. Thus, the template now includes 'every article linked from the nominated page.' -- Wikipedical 03:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  - You missed Esoteric Hitlerism. I held my nose and did it myself, forever polluting my edit history. ikkyu2 (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    - Esoteric Hitlerism is just a redirect to Nazi mysticism which was already there ergot 16:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
      - Triple yuck. ikkyu2 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Misuse of a disam page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessary and not a real disamig page. Batmanand 15:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedical. Chairman S. | Talk 20:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 21:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Redundant category/template; not really a disambig page either. --Jay(Reply) 21:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments As the page creator - I have no problem with Nazism in relation to other concepts (disambiguation) being deleted. I apparently did not understand how things worked. My mistake. It was a complicated series of pages being reorganized. The template is the better solution.--Cberlet 17:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion Adrian Lamo ·· 10:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muttar Masti

Delete This page sounds like a joke. I couldn't find any information for Muttar Masti in a Google search. The wiki article contains no references. If anyone can provide evidence that this weird subject is legitimate, please do so. Thanks. Nortonew 00:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete. Agreed, this page is a hoax. A "Lindsay Kensington," the 'expert' does not exist and neither do any other characters. I've seen better. -- Wikipedical 00:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete. I tagged this as an attack page as well, since it's highly probable that it is. It's either that, or a rather elaborately planned joke (or both). --Kinu ^t/_c 00:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - nonsense. Hoax. —ERcheck @ 00:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as dumb hoax. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as probable hoax. Capitalistroadster 01:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - elaborate hoax - and delete all the images - though be careful, at least one is a genuine image which is linked on other pages, though of course the "translation" is bullshit, like the rest of this "article". Camillus (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, lame and insulting hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy but please send it to BJAODN ++Deiz 02:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable biography. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Mojekwu

This appears to be a vanity page about a high school basketball player. NickelShoe 00:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical 00:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - nn-bio. —ERcheck @ 00:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-bio. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete lame vanity page which is a perfect example of what we mean by "not notable"... a middle-school basketball player, believe it or not!! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
(Speedy) delete as vanity. dbtfz ^talk 03:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hilarious Delete A middle school basketball player with his choice of high schools. 5'10" 155...size to score on the inside, but quick enough to play the wing...wow, BJAODN this lame guy. Batman2005 06:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is pretty funny. This is vanity at its worst/best. Should we refrain from goofing on the guy 'cause he's just in middle school and doesn't know any better? Nah. ; ) dbtfz ^talk 07:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Bad ideas 07:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Vanity... and borderline BJAODN. Are there any rules about a High School booster buying your Mom a Hummer while you consider which HS will best develop your basketball talents?--Isotope23 14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity, with possible userpage suggestion to try out for the Toronto Raptors. We could use the help. Lord Bob 16:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. The fact that he's in middle school makes it a BJAODN candidate. Snurks ^{T C} 19:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 15:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Davis Day

Minor observance of very local interest. 65 unique googles and not all about topic. Either merge with a valid page on Cape Breton / Nova Scotia or delete. ++Deiz 00:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It's notable, the article needs content added not deletion. -- Wikipedical 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Seems verifiable [1], expandable, and noteworthy at least to miners in Nova Scotia. Smerdis of Tlön 01:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So get expanding... Nobody is saying it isn't real, but plenty of stuff we delete is "real" but far from encyclopedic. That something is "noteworthy to miners in Nova Scotia" is hardly grounds for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I'm sure the price list in their canteen is important to them too. I'm all about the unusual nature of this and hope it turns into a great article, right now it's nothing. ++Deiz 02:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep and expand. How many holidays celebrate the death of a striking miner? This is real [2] and highly unusual. -- JJay 01:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
According to Cape Breton Development Corporation the last mine in the area closed in 2001 - is this holiday even observed any more? Wouldn't a better start be an article on William Davis and the statue of him in New Waterford town square, or better still the strike itself (see the BESCO section of Industrial history of Cape Breton Island for a start, albeit directly lifted from [3]). Instead we get articles on the company shop, main street and the water supply? Non notable, so Delete Jxan3000 13:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would cheerfully also support the merge and redirect of the article into a general article about William Davis (miner), salva veritate. (William Davis is unsurprisingly a disambig page.) Smerdis of Tlön 16:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, Noteworthy thing, it should be expanded. Afonso Silva 13:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, people are calling this notable but I really have to disagree. I just don't see it, looking at the evidence available. Lord Bob 16:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Industrial history of Cape Breton Island and redirect. Peyna 18:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Needs some more content, but it sure isn't Corpsel. --Jay(Reply) 21:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per JJay.192.43.227.18 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Peyna.--ThreeAnswers 02:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 kept as bad-faith nomination. Capitalistroadster 05:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4chan

Delete. Vanity page on minor non-notable message board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BabbleOn (talk • contribs) The author of this nomination is BabbleOn (talk · contribs), who had at the time of this writing exactly three edits -- two to this AfD, one to today's page of AfDs, none to the article (in other words, no placement of the required AfD notice.)

Keep, alexa rank 6,146 [4] Kappa 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. It is one of the most popular message boards of all time, as well. 01:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Are you kidding? This is a huge website (not quite as big as OffTopic.com, but still definitely notable). --Rory096 01:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. 4chan is hardly a "minor non-notable message board" and the fact that a brand-new user headed straight for AfD and completed every step of it successfully except placing the appropriate notice on the article itself pretty much says "bad-faith nomination" to me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Kappa Ruby 01:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - Extremely notable. --light darkness ^(talk) 01:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. 4chan is long-standing and highly popular website, and basically the definitive English-language imageboard. I suspect this nomination is based on BabbleOn personally disliking 4chan rather than any good-faith belief that the board is non-notable. Redxiv 01:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep for all of the above reasons, possible bad-faith nom? Snurks ^{T C} 03:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep bad faith nomination for sure. Deckiller 04:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep sure is speedy!! -- Bobdoe (Talk) 05:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common phrases based on stereotypes

This was proposed for deletion with the reason given "unverified original research" by Doc glasgow, however I don't think PROD is suitable in this case. Another possible reason for would be "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". No actual opinion from me ATM. Kappa 01:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with List of ethnic slurs Ruby 01:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you'd want to add a whole lot of unreferenced material to List of ethnic slurs? Why? How would that improve that article?--Doc ^ask? 08:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment In principle, it's different from Ethnic Slurs - see e.g. the entry Bible thumper. Dlyons493 Talk 01:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Endomion, else Keep. -- Wikipedical 02:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can verify more than a few of these having heard them frequently while growing up in the South. This article should be kept or worst case merged. edw

Keep. This is clearly different from ethnic slurs. A phrase based on a stereotype is not necessarily an ethnic slur (example: "luck of the Irish"), and an ethnic slur is not necessarily a phrase based on a stereotype (example: "whitey"). Many terms would qualify for both lists, though. dbtfz ^talk 05:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep--Weak bad 07:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - rebuild it with references if you like. ATM nothing is referenced, and it is just a target for racist additions. If this survives, I intend to remove all unreferenced assertions, which as it stands will leave it blank. --Doc ^ask? 08:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I've referenced Bible thumper which is in everyday use and which is not mergeable into Ethnic slurs Dlyons493 Talk 19:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - completely unreferenced. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V. ergot 17:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep and merge. A lot of these are unsourced and unverified. Having said that, like someone mentioned above, I have heard many of these used as "you must be of (x) race/ethnicity/group/etc. to use this otherwise you're racist." I suppose that makes it notable if merged into List of ethnic slurs, but I'm not really sure how these could play out on their own. Otherwise, delete.--み使い Mitsukai 18:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Unsourced, and unverifiable. Quite a few are made up or completely non-notable. This article lacks quality and has a low potential of being quality, while overlapping the already existing List of ethnic slurs. There are already enough categories and lists, rendering this redundant. --Jay(Reply) 21:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This list seems to be relevant if its entries can be proved. Anthony Appleyard 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Different from Ethnic Slurs. Wikipedia is WP:NOT paper. Overlap doesn't imply duplication. -AKMask 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This article is—or at least could be—a very useful source of information, e.g. for people who want to avoid using expressions that are based on stereotypes. It has been established, I think, that it is distinct from List of ethnic slurs. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, however, I think each entry should be required to have at least one respectable reference associated with it: a source that verifies that the phrase is or has been in reasonably wide use in some community and is indeed based on a stereotype. Any phrase not satisfying this criterion should be removed from the list. That's my opinion, anyway. dbtfz ^talk 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

While that sounds like a great idea, this isn't really something that gets reported around in the media. Slang for Eskimos and Aleuts is 'Tundra-monkeys'... sucking on a can with big wet lips is called 'nigger-lipping'. Both of those are based on steotypes (igloos and big lips respectivly) and yet I have a hard time seeing a newspaper print either of those. -AKMask 02:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia content must be verifiable. If we can't find a (respectable) reference to verify a phrase, it is too obscure (perhaps something someone made up in school one day) and should be excluded. dbtfz ^talk 03:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're quite right when it comes to needing to be verifiable. I was just pointing out that your use of the word respectable in the original suggestion. I doubt we'll find the New York Times approved list. -AKMask 03:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

By "respectable" I just meant "serious, and more than 3 people have read it"—not necessarily the New York Times. : ) dbtfz ^talk 03:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 18:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sofa painting

Prod was removed without comment. This seems like some kind of non-notable type of painting, if you can even call it a type of painting. Absolutely no context. --Rory096 01:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep I see 524 ghits, and about half are really about sofa paintings Ruby 01:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Seems like a legitimate article topic to me. dbtfz ^talk 03:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. I agree that it seems notable, but as Rory mentioned above, it's going to need some expansion for context.--み使い Mitsukai 18:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep per Mitsukai Compu te r Jo e 20:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep EXPAND ILovePlankton 23:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liam Herringshaw

Reason why the page should be deleted;

A vanity page. The subject is a real person (and does possess a doctorate) but is does not in any way meet wikipedia's notability guidelines (see e.g. biographies of living persons, academic guidelines, and notability. However, I can at least vouch for his appearance on television (University Challenge). It is not clear from google whether or not he has any academic publications whatsoever (no publications in peer-reviewed journals according to googlescholar [[5]], will update with results of WOS search to confirm), and according to what I can find, he appears to hold no academic post (and certainly no tenured post) in the UK or elsewhere, and nor has he ever, beyond his doctoral studies. Many google hits are either wiki-mirrors or self-submitted reviews and comments, although some do indeed pertain to the subject's academic work (conference abstracts and the like). His last known employment seems to have been as an administrator (non-academic) in the University of Leicester's School of Management. Much of the text of the article is clearly spurious (ie cricketing exploits); and contains obvious puffery (certainly the subject is not widely known in academic circles for his research, nor is he ~~'reknowned'~~ 'renowned' for anything). It is my strong suspicion that the page has been written or edited by the subject himself or by a close associate for a joke. The subject is not notable enough for either his media appearances (of which there are two, both quiz shows where he appeared as a member of the public) )or his academic work to be included in wikipedia, imho. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 01:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical 02:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete for it is indeed AutoVanityCruftPuff-Puffery (some might even say Chuff-Chuffery) and must be banished. ++Deiz 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable for Wikipedia article. Standard academic vita. Participation with a group of geology/archeology students on a cricket team does not meet notability bar. —ERcheck @ 03:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. dbtfz ^talk 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The debate about academics' notability is still very much ongoing, but this person would surely fail pretty much any sensible criteria. Batmanand 15:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete undefined Avi 20:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Delete or Userfy Avi 20:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamix club

Nonnotable school club. Also probably vanity. Delete. Indrian 01:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Move into Ramjas School (R.K., Puram New Delhi) or Delete. -- Wikipedical 02:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete school club. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. dbtfz ^talk 03:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
de per nom. Avi 20:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Avalon 09:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. VegaDark 09:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 04:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Closing admin's rationale, in response to query: AfD is about whether a particular topic is appropriate for Wikipedia and not about the current state of the article. If there are excessive redlinks or inappropriate bluelinks, or if the article is incomplete, these are content issues that can be remedied through normal editing processes outside AfD. In determining whether an article topic is suitable for Wikipedia, the closing admin's responsibility is to determine whether there is consensus on the issue, rather than to decide which side is right. Rationales contrary to Wikipedia policy should not be viewed as contributing to the consensus, and certain egregious flaws in an article (e.g., copyvio) trump consensus, but I don't really see that here: for the most part the debate seemed to be about whether or not this list served a function separate from that of a category. I saw no consensus on this issue (certainly no supermajority) so I closed it as a "no consensus". You can request that the decision be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review, if you like. Hope this helps!

[edit] List of Amstrad CPC games

Delete - the category Amstrad CPC games should be used instead, and contains many more entries than this article. Cpc464 02:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I once believed in deleting lists because of existing categories, but I've learned from my mistakes. The importance of lists in this situation is to allow red links; categories cannot display red links. -- Wikipedical 02:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete disagree entirely with the redlinks argument, per WP style guidelines: "What should not be linked: Subsidiary topics that result in redlinks (links that go nowhere), such as the titles of book chapters and the songs on albums, unless you're prepared to promptly turn those links into real ones yourself by writing the articles. It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one." This is the reason why a cleanup tag for redlinks exists and right now this page has far too many - the list vs. category argument is a valid one but ONLY if there is additional information in a list that wouldn't be found in a category - this is simply "links" (i.e. what would usually be held in a category), hence another clear contravention of the WP style guide. ++Deiz 02:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Additional - Many of the pages that are bluelinks here are not aimed at articles about the games they describe (presumably because such articles don't exist), simply the main page of that name... e.g "1942", "The Addams Family", "Anarchy", "The A-Team" to name a few... So there would be even more redlinks here if someone was prepared to go through this listcruftian disaster of mis-links and sort it out. The list is also incredibly incomplete, featuring only games beginning with numbers and A, B, I, U, V, W, X, Y and Z. Now that's Serious Listcruft. ++Deiz 03:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a project, I'll admit, but I'd rather wait for someone to update this page than to just delete it entirely. -- Wikipedical 03:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

keep ILovePlankton 02:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC) This member has been a contributing editor of Wikipedia for less than 24 hours
Delete let's go with the category per nom Ruby 03:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete- as noted, there's no reason whatsoever to keep this when there is already a category doing a superior job. Reyk 07:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Lists and Categories do entirely seperate jobs and should both be kept. Jcuk 10:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is a verifiable list, of potentially great use. Tell me why not to keep, and I may change, but so far all reasons given seem to be frivolous or petty. None are in the Deletion Policy. Batmanand 15:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Lists and categories do entirely separate jobs when there is information in the list that wouldn't be found in a category. When an incomplete list exists as a massive repository of a) redlinks and b) misdirected blue links, without significant supplementary information (the name of the software company that produced the game is a start but not much of one) it doesn't belong on WP. If you can't see that you aren't reading the policies correctly. Anybody who is voting to "keep" this list is presumably personally guaranteeing that they will undertake work to bring this list in line with WP policy (see WP style guide above). I don't see any evidence of that yet. ++Deiz 16:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It is redundant to a category, because the games that don't and probably won't have articles on it do not have them for a very good reason: they are utterly non-notable. Full of redlinks. Stifle 12:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was lack of clear consensus but majority votes keep. Ifnord 18:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of lesbian porn stars

Listcruft given form. I do not see the need for there to be an article in this namespace, as we have the category system that can handle such a list. In fact, we have categories, mainly the Category:LGBT actors, which can be used to denote porn stars of a homosexual nature. Therefore, in lieu of this, I say merge and redirect to an applicable category. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep to allow redlinks. Strong delete. The vagueness of this page is hopeless. Accurate updated content will be impossible. -- Wikipedical 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete very little to it ILovePlankton 02:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 03:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep it's counterintuitive to delete this and keep List_of_gay_porn_stars. Adrian Lamo ·· 03:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep is there a wikipedia policy that this violates? if so please name it. DrIdiot 04:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete How do you know they are lesbians, because they did a girl-girl shoot? Gimme a break. Ruby 04:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep but change the page to say porn stars who have starred in lesbian porn. If lesbian modifies the porn rather than the star then this is verifable and notable. This is what was done at List of gay porn stars. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per User:savidan.--ThreeAnswers 06:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I'm not convinced there's any real reason to exclude it. Wiwaxia 06:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Replace with Category And question...anymore in porn there's so much switching back and forth...how do you know which ones are lesbians anyway? Just cause they're with a woman on screen doesn't mean they're lesbians. And if they're with a girl off screen...isn't that just taking your work home with you? Batman2005 06:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people are just such workaholics. Ruby 12:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Relevant to an enormous industry. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep There's a male counterpart. --Shinto 07:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep but rename to stars of lesbian porn movies or something. Lists and Categories are entirely different things that do seperate jobs. Jcuk 10:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Savidan. Batmanand 14:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as more pointless listcruft, and Ruby has an excellent point. Girl on Girl shoot does not equate to someone being a lesbian anymore than a DVDA shoot means the girl doing it enjoys quad penetration. It's all about the pay scale... If kept it needs a rename.--Isotope23 14:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Isotope Avi 20:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep/rename List of porn stars featured in lesbian scenes, or something akin but not as long. -AKMask 00:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Isotope.Blnguyen 02:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Savidan and Wiwaxia/ Avalon 09:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It's not NPOV for a start, and probably unverifiable too. I don't think it is listcruft, but it's hopelessly vague. Stifle 12:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Could be expanded but needs some references such as interviews with these stars. -- JJay 18:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft, unverifyable. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 10:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acellus

Page prodded as possible spam. User rewrote but still seemed like advert for web company, I removed the prod tag and asked for independent references to notability. Today a new user with one edit removed the references tag without adding any new info or explaining how this is notable and not spam, so I'm sending it to AfD. <--that was me, delete by the way. Thatcher131 20:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as advertising for Acellus.com. —ERcheck @ 03:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertising Maustrauser 04:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Advertisment Avi 20:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE!!! How can this be a encyclopedia without allowing me to spew forth my unwanted spam so I get free hosting and advertising on Wikipedia! If you delete this I'm going to go to the International Court and say you abused my right to steal your bandwith!!! ... *Cough*... vote bolded. -AKMask 00:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In case that that was confusing, as I've been advised it is, my vote is a rather resounding Delete, as spam. -AKMask 01:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE-- This page needs to be rewritten to eliminate the advertising and to include factual material. The Acellus Mathematics program represents a significant development in math education and has become an important item of discussion at most national math education conferences. It would be a mistake to lose the information. Firewriter 05:07 19 February 2006 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE--I believe this article can be salvaged and the information on a new approach to education technology gleaned from it.InfoInsatiate 05:45 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete not as possible spam but definite spam. Non-noteworthy. Ifnord 18:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE--I think that Acellus is ground breaking technology, and with the article re-written, It could be a good addition. Jacerox1234 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per creator's request. Mushroom (Talk) 12:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carparking_Act_(1870)

Hoax Mr. Vernon 17:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as obvious hoax. Kusma (討論) 21:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
delete (this entry seems messed up) Pete.Hurd 23:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Somehow this nomination didn't get listed, I am listing now. Kusma (討論) 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as not even funny enough for BJAODN. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Hoax, I found this part rather humerous: "The mathematical formula, as laid down in the Act, is as follows, and is generally self-explanative:", followed by a rediculous mathmatical equation. --light darkness ^(talk) 03:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - hoax. —ERcheck @ 04:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Somehow, I doubt that carparking was a legislative priority of the Gladstone Government. Delete as hoax. Capitalistroadster 04:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete {{hoax}} and an unfunny hoax at that, too. (aeropagitica) 07:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, please go ahead and Delete - with my apologies for wasting your time (although I'd like to think you don't get many hoaxes/vandelism about 19th Century politics ;)). It was an in-joke with a friend which was funny a few days ago when I put it up, but it's been on Wiki quite long enough now. JonMayer 09:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Time to speedy delete per request of only contributor. —ERcheck @ 12:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. D e ath phoenix 17:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amerime

This was previously deleted as a neologism. I'd like to reiterate that argument, and also add that this page is mostly original research. A google search for "amerime" gets about 1640 hits. As an additional note, creator has been adding links to the term to dozens of pages. --InShaneee 03:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete neologism, not even on urbandictionary DrIdiot 04:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment I just wanted to say I looked at this one and I can't vote either way Ruby 04:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. Googled for it; gets a little bit of use on chat boards. If kept the top of the article should note that the term is a nelogism and not widely recognised. Seems like the term was previously AfD'd as a self-admitted hoax: User_talk:Ground_Zero/Archive_2#Soviet_Canuckistan_.26_Amerime. Weregerbil 08:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep -just because something is not widely used, it does not mean that it needs to be deleted, the goal of wikipedia is to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, not to just cover mainstream topics (even though these should get precedence.)Gizzakk 19:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- However, there are guidelines for what deserves inclusion. It's basic wiki policy that not just anything belongs here. --InShaneee 03:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep I've heard this term for close to 20 years now (it was first [mis]applied to Robotech), but is gaining stronger use as "true Amerime" comes out. I will agree that the article is going to need some hefty revamping (and I'll see about that myself), but to get rid of it would mean we'd have to get rid of other "non-Japanese" anime and manga forms like Amerimanga, La nouvelle manga, etc.--み使い Mitsukai 19:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Working on cleanup. Now if I can keep the overzealous otaku from making biased edits, it should be fine.--み使い Mitsukai 19:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - This is the fourth incarnation of an article named after a word I made up. I checked, shortly after I created the article, and there were a few independent hits on Google, so while I can take some credit/blame for this term, it's not really a true neologism if it's been around for twenty years. I'd say the only thing going against this article is that it's been deleted three times before. Stranger still is that my original goal, which was struck out upon around two years ago, may be coming to fruitation: this word has been sufficiently forced into circulation that it has actually taken root. Cool. -Litefantastic 19:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn neologism, unless someone can provide references and proof of it being in widespread usage. Just because something is 20 years old doesn't mean it's notable. --Rory096 03:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Although this a pioneering term that is just beginning to become known, American Anime or Amerime will put up dozens of results on google, AOL and yahoo so how could it possibly still be considered as neologism? As one of the world's largest online encyclopedias, I believe that it would do Wikipedia good to retain the solid, groundbreaking information Amerime provides and thusly increase its reputation as an online encyclopedia to both old and new valuable information.Walter Nwaokolo 1:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- "Dozens" is hardly a good sign. --InShaneee 03:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speed deleted as A7 biography with no assertion of notability.Capitalistroadster 10:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Andrew Cox

Non-notable; vanity DanielCD 03:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Autobiographical nn bio, just a little longer and more elaborate than usual. Snurks ^{T C} 04:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Speedy delete obvious vanity FloNight 04:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Couldn't be less notable. dbtfz ^talk 05:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Tagged as such. --light darkness ^(talk) 05:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a better way to deal with such pages would just be to move them to user pages. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Ashes

Delete nn website Aaronw 04:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. dbtfz ^talk 05:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Paul Carpenter 11:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, WP:NG Avi 20:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 12:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. There doesn't appear to be anything much to merge, particularly given that no more information about the other schools in Ewell are noted in the main article. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ewell Grove Infant and Nursery School

This is a non-notable infant school. I am concerned that we shall clutter up Wiki with millions of nursery schools. Might as well put in my local shopping centre too *Delete Maustrauser 04:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete While schools are notable, preschools are not. I think there is a wikiproject for shopping centers. Mike _{(T C)} 05:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally I'd keep all Schools. However, as I think I'm in the minority as far as nursery schools are concerned I vote Merge with the Ewell page, reserving the right to change to keep later if it looks worthwhile. Jcuk 10:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I tend to agree with Jcuk with the keeping all schools thing, but as a compromise, I think having the content at Ewell wouldn't be so bad. enochlau (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'm not in the "Keep All Schools" crowd (though I'm not scrounging around to AfD them either). In my opinion, it's getting ridiculous if we are keeping pre-schools, nurseries, & daycares without some futher evidence of notability. If anyone really wants to retain this information it could merge to Ewell especially if this is the only Nursery school in the village.--Isotope23 14:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unless I can have an article about the neighbour who sometimes looked after me when I was 5. Avalon 09:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was well, I asked my magic eight ball whether I should close this as a merge or a delete, and it replied with "concentrate and ask again"; I did so, and got "outlook not so good". I'm not entirely sure what that's supposed to mean in the context of a deletion debate, so, in light of the fact that there doesn't seem to be very much worth merging here, I'm going to redirect to speed limit. If anyone wants to actually merge, they know how to look at the page history. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Speed Limits

This short article, created two days ago, should really just be a section of speed limit. Furthermore, the article is characterized by its original research, misinformation, and direct and implied factual errors. See the article's discussion page for a more detailed criticism. Nova SS 04:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. (Sorry, forgot to enter my own delete.) Nova SS 15:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. all the relevant info including the Autobahn etc is already in speed limit -- Astrokey44|talk 11:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Kcordina 11:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge I don't see how it's original research if it's on a sign post. Paul Carpenter 11:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete because of redundancy. Also misleading title. Pavel Vozenilek 21:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge into speed limit -Satori ^(talk) 00:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Satori. Stifle 12:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radio nickos

Reads as an advert-- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Why thank you for preformatting these things. To add to your nom, Alexa rank is 3,110,527. Fails WP:WEB. Daniel Case 04:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Daniel Case. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Daniel Ruby 04:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Daniel. Mak emi 04:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:VSCA. Bad ideas 08:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 19:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astasia abasia

Source is bogus. Most likely a work of fiction. Bobby1011 04:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Fiction it is certainly not; it's an archaic neurologic term (but then again, most neurologic terms are sort of obscure.) Astasia refers to the inability to maintain station (stand upright) unassisted; abasia means that the base of gait (the lateral distance between the two feet) is inconstant or unmeasurable. It's not always caused by conversion disorder; there are organic syndromes, such as those which destroy or inactivate the cerebellum, which cause it too. Don't have a ref to hand at the moment. ikkyu2 (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've attempted to clean up the article a bit. ikkyu2 (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's real, as a quick google search will verify. dbtfz ^talk 04:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Ikkyu2 Ruby 04:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above 3 keeps. Mike _{(T C)} 05:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and well done Ikkyu2 for the cleanup. Capitalistroadster 05:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Appears to be a legitimate medical term. (aeropagitica) 07:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Obscure, which is why it should stay!--PaulWicks 09:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep and thanks to ikkyu2. --Lockley 13:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Ikkyu2. Bobby, why did you think the "source" was "bogus", to the point of not checking it yourself as Dbtfz did? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep Real Avi 20:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep, many thanks to ikkyu2. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 23:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. Legit. Samir धर्म 23:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Perhaps speedy. Not a bad faith nom, but a mistaken one... that said, I assumed fake as well. Thanks ikkyu2. -AKMask 00:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep --Haham hanuka 17:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The keep comments (at least, the ones worth paying any attention to) acknowledge that the article may need a complete rewrite to avoid reading like a hoax. Frankly, if the article's in that bad shape, it can start again from scratch after this particular incarnation gets wiped. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Female nude wrestling

Delete - article does seem to exist as a keyword magnet for the urls listed. Tawker 03:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
not delete - Significance is existing. There exist a lot of Yaoo groups treating this sport. The images are on my point of view not "hard pornograhy" because the female genitals are not visibly. (Only vaguely the pubic hair on the 2nd image). - This is of course not pornography but only nudism! Einzelkämpfer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Einzelkämpfer (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC).
I have found 10,070 Google hits! significant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.178.155.242 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, but try putting the string in quotes as is done here. Most links are porn sites. --StuffOfInterest 20:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Female nude wrestling is different to catfight. Only Catfight seems more sexuel motivated, Female Nude Wrestling not. In Austria exist a respectable Wrestling division (Danube Wrestling Women-DWW) were Women fight naked or less dressed (Bikini), but without sexuel intend. There a lot of spectators are women, too. - Don´t delete ~~Toronto 98~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.156.205.193 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

Reference Check Fails This article appears to be a puppetshow. It contains links to commercial pornography portals. The "Tony Perrottet: The Naked Olympics" book cited as a reference for this article is bogus. The sections cited do not appear to carry any reference to female nude wrestling. They cover the topics of Olympic rites and sacrifices to Greek dieties. If we've missed something in the reference, please correct us. Otherwise, this article with all re-direct pages and links should be deleted. --Deeb 03:35 February 13, 2006 (UTC)

The article should not be deleted, only the links to pornographic sites. The theme is relevant and the authors underlay clearly that this kind of wrestling is not pornography. (It is mentioned that all sexuel intended dealings are strikt forbidden during a contest).

On the other hand exist the same article in the German WiKi.

Keep after deleting the commercial links ➥the Epopt 15:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite. From searches I have done, including looking at German wikipedia, it appears that this is sexual entertainment, meaning the page will need to be totally rewritten. As this activity does exist, I don't feel a delete is necessary. As long as the article is rewritten to acknowledge that this is sexual entertainment and cites sources, I say keep. Bad ideas 04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD was orphaned. Listing now CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete, btw anybody else notice all 6 women portrayed have bleach-blonde hair? giggle Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 05:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep If this 'sport' is legit, then keep (especially that last image...! Hmm.). Needs substantial rewrite though, and may well have originated as a gag. However, that alone is no bar if the subject is sufficiently notable anyway. Obviously, links to porn etc should be axed. Badgerpatrol 05:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete No references/reference check fails, possible copy vio images. Mike _{(T C)} 05:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was pretty funny though: "If she obtains the bonus, she gets to go into a special position". Mike _{(T C)}

05:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite to make it less pornographic and remove the commercial appeal. Oh, and make sure the images can be legally used or else remove them. Cema 05:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Trim the links and change anything you consider promotional to be NPOV. However, wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. This is obviously notable as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Obvious WP:NOR violation, no indication that anything in the article could be verified. Looks like not-very-well-disguised advertising for the videos/performers the author is touting. Monicasdude 12:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A little investigation shows that the pictures on the article are named Image:Timea Vagvoelgyi wrestling 4.jpg etc., and we currently have an article on Timea Vagvoelgyi, saying she is a porn star. This seems a sufficient evidence of a made-up topic. - Liberatore(T) 16:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Little evidence presented that this is a notable sport. Capitalistroadster 18:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. In the current form it appears to be nothing but promotional original research. If such a sport really does exist then the article can be recreated from a neutral, non-commerical point of view. --StuffOfInterest 20:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Mud wrestling, since they're almost identical forms of sexual entertainment. Mak emi 20:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable sport Avi 20:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn "sport".Blnguyen 02:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - The authors underlay that this nothing has to do with porn intended mud wrestling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.156.205.194 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC).
Delete as per WP:NOR, WP:N, and WP:VSCA. Stifle 13:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia policies indicated by Stifle. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Despite the author's emphasis on this point, all the evidence I have seen indicates that this is pornography, not a sport. However, that in itself is not grounds for deletion. The subject is still notable, much like mud wrestling, catfighting, etc. are considered notable. My vote remains as above. Bad ideas 18:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep The subject is noteable, even if the sporting aspect is rather dubious.GordyB 11:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole article describes this activity as a sport. Since we agree that this is not a sport, I do not see what can be saved of the article. - Liberatore(T) 12:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Very much notable. May need work though. But keep. Forever young 15:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - BMF81 10:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Badgerpatrol. The JPS 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete wikispam at worst, original research at best. If there's anything notable about this, redirect it to some more comprehensive article.--Cúchullain t / c 02:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Sidorenko

Hate to nominate these articles, but the possibility of furthering misinformation is too great.
There's no references for him except the website snipercentral which says he killed 500 Germans (which would make him one of the best snipers in history), and then a bunch of googlehits of people copy/pasting the website's list to their gaming messageboards, and I can't help but notice this messageboard has somebody named Ivan.Sidorenko@snipercentral.ru so it's entirely possible that he edited himself into the list as a joke. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 05:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Unless the article can be verified it is highly suspect. What proof exists of this incredible success rate? If it is available then it should be linked to or referenced. (aeropagitica) 07:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Quite a few times articles are sourced even worse but this article is empty and thus of no use. Btw, similar "records" were (reliably) recorded during WWII. One example was a Finnish snipper during Winter war (he had it easy because Soviet Army lacked winter camouflage). Pavel Vozenilek 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete because the most successful Soviet sniper during WWII was Lyudmila Pavlichenko, who killed 309 Germans. I see that the creator of this article also created a link to it on the Pavlichenko page. ergot 23:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. Stifle 13:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. WP:NOT a crystal ball, but verifiable cases of other people crystal ball-gazing (e.g. the press) is usually enough, as we can see here using primitive vote-counting techniques. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psiphon

Wikiepdia is not a crystal ball. Bobby1011 05:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. --Zsinj^Talk 05:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Anticipated software is verifiable, notable, timely, and of wide interest. —Viriditas | Talk 05:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Wikipedia $\ne$ crystal ball. dbtfz ^talk 05:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Change to keep in light of press coverage. dbtfz ^talk 16:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The project is legitimate and has a firm announcment date. The article will serve to provide useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle r b (talk • contribs)
Keep: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball has been applied leniently across the board especially with movies and other products with an announced release date. Notability would be another issue, but that doesn't seem to be the objection here and I don't know enough to comment on that. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- If anyone can point to an actual press release (or something like that) announcing when the software is to be released, I'll reconsider. dbtfz^talk 07:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  - It was announced in The Globe and Mail article (posted 9:10 AM EST ON 13/02/06) linked in the article: [6]. See the 14th paragraph. —Viriditas | Talk 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It's true that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but as the text of that prohibition indicates, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." It is exactly that discussion of what the impact will be if Psiphon fulfills its intent which has led to Psiphon being covered by several major news sources even at this early stage of its development. Keep. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above reasons. It seems like it could be politically important, too, which just adds to its notability. Snurks ^{T C} 19:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ardenn 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, I agree with Antaeus Feldspar and Snurks. I read about Psiphon in an article in Le Monde ([7], in French), and I thought to read some more about it on Wikipedia - I suppose more people will have that idea, so having an article makes sense... (and I forgot to sign, I see) Semprini 17:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Goth subculture. D e ath phoenix 17:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elder Goth

Article consists of original research. Bobby1011 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

'CommentArticle is referenced however. I am undecided though on this article. Mike _{(T C)}

05:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect and merge content to Goth subculture. I don't see why this term/concept needs its own article, especially since it's not in wide use. dbtfz ^talk 05:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect and merge content to Goth subculture per Dbtfz. Not enough info to support a separate article.--Isotope23 14:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This eldergoth/corpgoth agrees with the above Redirect and merge votes. -Satori ^(talk) 00:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per above. This should probably also apply to Perkygoth... siafu 23:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted - as it gets all of exactly five Google hits. Not even a slang term or even a neologism. FCYTravis 08:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poking the brown starfish

Describes slang term for anal sex with an unsourced (and dubious) etymology. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 05:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Sexual slang. dbtfz ^talk 05:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Appears to have already been speedied as previously deleted content. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Bennett Perry

Delete - non-notable rydia 05:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep :( - You win this time John Bennett Perry but I'll have my day.ColenFace 05:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable actor. See [8]. Also, father of a very famous actor (with whom he has appeared in various films and TV shows), which pushes his notability up a notch. dbtfz ^talk 05:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has too many articles on notable actors. We don't need another one.ColenFace 06:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Normally i'm one of the first to nominate bit part and film extras. But normally the ones I nominate don't have a credit list 74 items long. Sure he's not the star of these shows and films, but he's been in enough to make him somewhat notable. Batman2005 07:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Batman it's not quantity but quality of film. John Bennett Perry lacks significant qualities that are required to include him in the wikipedia database. He's not wiki material we don't want him.ColenFace 07:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Who are you to decide quality of his roles? "This will be the straw that breaks the camels back" give me a break bud. He's got 74 credits to his name, in well known shows...he meets the requirements for inclusion. "we don't want him here" you're one of TWO people to vote delete. Obviously YOU don't want him here! Batman2005 04:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am ColenFace.ColenFace 11:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep - notable enough for me --Xorkl000 09:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep actually some of us think he is wiki material, and we do want him here. Jcuk 10:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your delusional Jcuk, John Bennet Perry has you wrapped around his little finger.ColenFace 20:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I STRONGLY suggest you go and read Wikipedia:Civility. The word by the way is "You're" not "Your". Jcuk 00:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm the one that has to tell you this Jcuk but you've been lied to your whole life. You're and your are completely synonymous. It's one of the primary tools “The Man” uses to elicit control over his people. But it doesn’t have to be this way. I'm starting a resistance group meet me at the Old City docks at midnight. Let's give “The Man” a little taste of his own medicine.ColenFace 11:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Long list of credits and having a famous son makes him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 10:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Obvious Keep. Working television actor for roughly 35 years with regular roles in at least two series. Nomination is at least close to bad faith. Monicasdude 12:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)\
You have all disregarded the fact that the wikipedia servers do not have infinite capacities. This article will be the straw that breaks the camels back. I beg of you please delete this article. If you wont do it for me, do it for the wiki family(Your wiki family).ColenFace 20:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- ColenFace, you seem to have a real chip on your shoulder about this guy. What's the matter, did he beat you out for the part of the Old Spice sailor? ; ) dbtfz ^talk 21:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I was a real champ, on top of my game. Everything was going for me the world was my oyster. Audition time for role as the Old Spice sailor the only part I ever wanted. I put my whole heart and soul into that audition and would have gotten it too if John Bennet Perry hadn't walked in and taken it from me. I'll admit it his physic, his charm, his aroma, he had it all. He's better than me I knew that anybody knew that. When I saw his article up for deletion I thought it was too good to be true, the ultimate revenge. But now it's looking like John Bennet Perry has defeated me once again. This should have been my article and the great Mathew Perry son of the great John Bennet Perry should have been Mathew ColenFace son of the great Colenface. My life is in shambles. And I owe it all to John Bennet Perry. John Bennet Perry 2 : ColenFace 0.ColenFace 11:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep: He's a character actor whose had more roles than many other more famous actors. Smylere Snape 14:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theoretical foundation of polymorphism

Old page I'd committed to delete, but never got around to it. A dead link, too. VKokielov 05:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete No one seems to want to maintain it, so delete.TheRingess 05:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Some of the content in the article duplicates the Polymorphism (object-oriented programming) article. The rest is unencyclopedic. The Rod 15:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Factually incorrect. Although the article is more or less internally consistent, the concept it describes is not polymorphism and it is not foundational. See my comments on the talk page. Cjoev 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Pavel Vozenilek 21:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. —Ruud 01:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wrong (and redundant). --bmills 04:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - incorrect, original research, unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-20 13:17Z
Delete per Quarl, Cjoev, bmills. --Mgreenbe 14:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice. (Can I vote that way?) "Theoretical foundations of polymorphism" is an interesting and encyclopedic topic in type theory, and it might at some point deserve it's own article. But not this article. --EngineerScotty 19:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Hezhen. D e ath phoenix 17:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golds

Hmmm...

Delete. As far as I can tell, Golds is an antiquated term for the Nanai people of Siberia, and an article already exists on that topic. Not to mention that the 1911 Britannica article is downright racist in 2006, i.e the 'White Man's Burden' writing style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookmastaflex (talk • contribs)
Merge with Hezhen (which Nanai redirs to). --OscarTheCat^talk 09:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Hezhen. Name may be of historical relevence so am inclined to want to keep the article name, but it isn't worthy of an article Kcordina 11:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Hezhen. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge anything useful per above. The name Golds may have several English meanings; perhaps it should be a disambig about Hezhen, gold the metal, gold medals, and so forth. Smerdis of Tlön 18:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Concur with Smerdis; when I saw this, the first thing that went to my mind is Gold's Gym, strangely enough. Merge the useful stuff per above, and use the page as a disambig.--み使い Mitsukai 20:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion by User:Mushroom Adrian Lamo ·· 10:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dodecahedronism

Seems to be a hoax, unverifiable, nonsense. Delete Mak emi 06:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Agree. No google hits. Amcfreely 06:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bundle with Dodecahedronist

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 empty page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Paddington

This seems to be a hoax, or at least unverifiable. No ghits for author, only hits for name are completely unrelated. Delete Mak emi 07:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete- I can't find anything on Goolge either. Reyk 07:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete {{hoax}} article, along with the dodecahedron-related pages. (aeropagitica) 07:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Author blanked the page, so marking it {{empty}}. Weregerbil 14:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 recreation of previously deleted content (CSD G4). Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing Racist

Delete. Non-notable comedy bit, website has an Alexa rank >200000. This is the second AfD. It was deleted a first time, so potential Speedy as a repost. Will require sysop eyes to check. Vslashg (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Rosenfeld

Remember that scene in Gladiator? "I didn't say I knew him (Marcus Aurelius)! I said he touched me on the shoulder once!" This article is about as notable, on its stated merits. Can anyone develop this? No vote. Adrian Lamo ·· 07:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment - See also this[9] log, which shows this page previously deleted by Jimmy Wales, and restored by User:Alex S. Adrian Lamo ·· 07:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - tenuous at best. --OscarTheCat^talk 08:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep Rosenfeld isn't hugely notable, but he's on the periphery of something that is, and that affects the way people view WP. I'm trying to lean in the direction of information-rich here.
Delete with extreme prejudice. Sorry, but man, how non-notable can an article get? :-) — RJH 17:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep These sort of things are weirdly worshipped by those in the geek community such as myself. The people that do something small that something huge results out of. Don't think theres any danger of it quite blossoming into jargon-file-on-wikipedia. But do expand- How'd he become interested in wikis and whatnot? -AKMask 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per RJH. Stifle 13:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep there seems to be some disagreement about the founding of Wikipedia, i.e. Larry Sanger's involvement, whose idea was it really, etc. This article comes dangerously close to being a self-reference, so maybe should be moved. But it is ~~generally agreed~~ my understanding that the person who set an important movement in motion is important. Thus, this guy is notable for setting the stone of wikipedia rolling, if wikipedia is notable, which according to WP:WEB it is. Mak emi 07:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
A-bit-stronger-than-weak Keep there exist a controversy about who presented Jimbo with idea about wiki. Therefore, this guy is controversial enough to became notable. I'd keep the article and add more links as references, so person interested in the "who's idea wikipedia was" thingy can do some reading. i fact, that's what I'm gonna do right now. --Dijxtra 16:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep - he might not be notable, but his legacy is. --Candide, or Optimism 23:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caria Lopez

Fictional person, "cousin of Jennifer Lopez". Claims to appear on Aaahh!!! Real Monsters, see IMDB for real cast. A work of fiction by systematic fake info submitter Syriana (talk - contribs). Was prod'd, tag removed without comment. Weregerbil 07:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Appears to be fictional in nature. (aeropagitica) 07:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, person doesn't seem to exist --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete only verifiable claim in article is false, no google evidence this person exists. Sliggy 14:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete This user hasn't exactly submitted the most verifiable content. Adrian Lamo ·· 01:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. dbtfz ^talk 05:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Stifle 13:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion by User:Thue Adrian Lamo ·· 00:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torrey Paquette

Works of fiction. Neither google nor IMDB knows of any of this. See author's edit history for other fake articles, already nominated for deletion: Simontclf (talk | contribs). I am also nominating the following related pages as works of fiction by the same author:

Jed Baker
Corn on Macabre
From Barry Goldwater to George W. Bush - How the Late 20th Century Changed Conservatives
Mr. Orwell and the Nameless Bureaucrat

Weregerbil 07:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete his absence from google speaks volumes. Nonsense articles. --OscarTheCat^talk 08:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, fictionous actors and movies --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The three articles Torrey Paquette, Corn on Macabre, and Walter Paddington were blanked by author, so marking them speedily deletable as empty. The rest remain as AfD. Weregerbil 14:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Campsite. D e ath phoenix 17:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camp ground

Not notable eLNuko 08:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --OscarTheCat^talk 08:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete its also almost completely context free! --Xorkl000 09:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep I was going to tag this for speedy deletion, when I noticed the author enjoyed a total of 22 minutes between article creation and AfD nomination. Please, let's give articles a reasonable chance before coming in for the kill : ) . Adrian Lamo ·· 10:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

yes on second thoughts lets give it some time, changing my vote to keep--Xorkl000 10:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

well its been a couple of days, and it hasn't progressed, its probably fundamentally flawed (as per Jeff Q) - changing vote yet again (is there a penalty for being indecisive btw?) to delete --Xorkl000 12:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Campsite, which is more appropriate based on the principle of least astonishment. The creator of this article seems a little unclear on how to work with wiki links. In one short session of editing Apostolic Faith Mission, s/he added links to camp ground (a generic term) for a specific but unnamed campground with very little data and no source; Headquarters in Portland, a broken link that should never be established, as it has no reasonable context as an article title; and new church (another generic phrase), which redirects to a completely irrelevant article. (Fortunately, s/he removed the "new church" link, along with a reasonable link to "parsonage", which unfortunately seems to be in the middle of a transwiki to Wiktionary.) This article clearly comes from that "camp ground" link. This is nothing more than an innocent case of overenthusiastic article linking and creation by a novice. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Let's give contributor a chance to realise a good article from scratch. Choose a meaningfull name for article (not such a common name) and tell us what the article is about, because for now I haven't a clue. Gtabary 13:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Jeff Q, and possibly userfy the article. It almost certainly is intended to be about the campground owned by the Apostolic Faith Mission. Crypticfirefly 05:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Currently speediable, A1 - no context at all. Can you even begin to guess how many places in the world there are called "Camp ground", or how difficult it would be trying to google for this one? Happy with a delete and redirect, as per JeffQ. Grutness...wha? 11:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as content-free. Then optionally recreate as a redirect. Stifle 13:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. D e ath phoenix 18:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced mallet techniques

This is just a list page with a made-up name. "Advanced mallet techniques" is not a formal/common name. I don't think this list adds anything over Category:Percussion performance techniques, and it is most certainly not complete. – flamurai (t) 07:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

After prod was removed, I am putting this up for VFD. I just don't see any use for this article. "Advanced" is inherently POV. There is no clear way to determine what should and shouldn't be in this article. – flamurai (t) 08:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Category:Percussion performance techniques already does the job, and the information is alerady in Burton grip and Stevens technique Kcordina 11:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
delete as per Kcordina. Gtabary 12:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
redirect to Extended technique --Ruby 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: It's hard to call four mallet playing "unconvential", since it's the basis of the (Western) marimba as a solo instrument. Not saying it would be a bad redirect, just that what's there now is something that is done by every classically trained percussionist on the face of the earth (though some of the things in extended technique, like multiple stops, are common, as well). – flamurai (t) 07:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The listing as such has no value, and the things being listed are already described more extensively at Stevens technique and Burton grip. - Andre Engels 10:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheaptobuyonline

Ad for start-up company CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete pure advertising. --OscarTheCat^talk 09:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete advert — Graibeard^(talk) 10:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
delete. adv. Gtabary 12:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
delete No alexa rank, utterly non-notable website. --Xyzzyplugh 14:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete this advertisement. Bad ideas 19:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Cheaptobuyonline, but even cheaper to delete. As per the above.--み使い Mitsukai 21:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1healuvadeal

Advertising eLNuko 09:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as advertising. No evidence of notability. Reyk 09:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. — Graibeard^(talk) 10:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete non notable, as per nom. --OscarTheCat^talk 11:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Mushroom (Talk) 12:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
delete. adv. Gtabary 12:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, blatant advertising. Bad ideas 19:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
1healuvadelete as per above.--み使い Mitsukai 21:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertising garbage. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as a bunch of junk. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 22:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Under what criterion? Mushroom (Talk) 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  - CSD A7. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goldstein & Associates, PC

Delete - NN law firm, as per WP:CORP --Xorkl000 09:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete non notable, as per nom. --OscarTheCat^talk 11:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
delete looks like adv to me. Gtabary 12:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, no references so it fails WP:V too. Stifle 13:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. D e ath phoenix 18:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawlessness associated with Hurricane Katrina

Delete - nothing worth saving here, nothing worth merging with Hurricane Katrina Xorkl000 09:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Jorend 15:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge any useful stuff and redirect to Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. Note that on the main Hurricane Katrina page, the section for looting and violence has been suggested for a merger into the page I mentioned. If so, anything worthwhile in this article can go there; certainly I think the redirect can go there. Otherwise delete.--み使い Mitsukai 20:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not worth merging. Unlikely search term, so not worth a redirect. Stifle 13:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Cje 09:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Honey buzzard. D e ath phoenix 21:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European Honey Buzzard - Pernis apivorus

There is already a more extensive article about it - Honey Buzzard. eLNuko 10:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge and delete. European Honey Buzzard already exists as a redirect — Graibeard^(talk) 10:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing worth merging here. Capitalistroadster 10:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Redirects are cheap. delldot | talk 17:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Graibeard freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 10:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment - User:Doug newman has created a number of bird-related articles similar to this one which replicate existing articles. Unfortunately I'm snowed under with work at the moment, but if someone has time it would be worth checking his contributions history and merging/AfDing the others. CLW 18:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign for American Leadership in the Middle East

Delete. This is a simple advertisement for a group. It is far from being encyclopedic. Sperril 10:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Was a plain and ful copy/paste from original web site. Looks indeed like adv to me. I boldly edited it. A double quoted Google serach yields about 700 hits. Not much. Gtabary 12:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Potential flamewar bait.--み使い Mitsukai 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, advert. Stifle 13:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That's So Raven Movie

Delete. No such movie exists, and won't until at least 2007. When it does get created, it almost certainly won't have this title. The current article has no meaningful content, and there is probably none to be had at this time anyway. Verifiability is also a serious question. Let's just wait until there is a movie to write about. Jeff Q (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Cristall ball article. Subject do not exist yet as stated in the article. Gtabary 12:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Advert. Nothing on imdb. No evidence of a production status given. — RJH 16:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete crystal ballage --Ruby 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete though you have to appreciate the irony in an article predicting the future of a movie about a girl (Raven) who can predict the future herself. BobbyLee 20:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Crystal ball. I probably will end up seeing it anyway. Doh. -- Samir ∙ ^T _C 23:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romantica

Advertising eLNuko 10:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete no-brainer, as per nom. --OscarTheCat^talk 11:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. adv. Gtabary 12:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. Bad ideas 19:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, {{db-nocontext}} seems reasonable. Stifle 13:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. D e ath phoenix 18:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smart cinema

This appears to be a term coined by a university teacher whose notability has not been asserted. A Google search for +"smart cinema" +sconce shows no evidence of the term's notability as described in this article. Delete. Ashenai 10:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete non notable, as per nom. --OscarTheCat^talk 11:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn --MONGO 12:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It looks verifiable. The non-linked refs given indeed are mentioned on the web. But... it looks alltogether like pretty young term or like original research stuff. I can not find clear mention of it as a commonly accepted term. A Google test fails indeed. So delete ? Gtabary 12:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is verifiable. Sources and everything. The problem is that it is just not notable. --Ashenai 12:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reaction I've added some new links to the article, hopefully making it more notable. It is quite a 'young' approach, but I personally find it way more interesting than other description of Gen X cinema. Maybe it should be transferred there?
Keep - It is a largly unknown term, but it is used occasionally and it apparently does make an appearance here and there. It'll be good to have this term defined somewhere online, and that's just something that Wikipedia is good at. 204.97.183.31 19:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As the article is now it is still non notable. Gtabary 20:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

~~The result of the debate was No consensus. D e ath phoenix 18:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)~~

The result of the debate was Delete. --D e ath phoenix 21:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carrillo Dining Commons

Advertising eLNuko 10:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Carrillo Dining Commons is notable, per the fact that this article is linked to by the following articles: "Manzanita Village" and "University of California, Santa Barbara" - Dakart
- Being linked to from another article does not automatically make the subject notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- No... But being mentioned and linked to suggests that. - Dakart
Delete non notable, fails WP:CORP, as per nom. --OscarTheCat^talk 11:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
delete. nn adv. Gtabary 12:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as non-notable as every other college slop factory... I mean, dining hall. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CapaSystems

Advertising eLNuko 11:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. -- Daverocks (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable software, company fails WP:CORP. Kcordina 11:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
delete. Adv. Gtabary 12:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete I don't want encyclopedia articles about entities that deliver IT solutions --Ruby 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ruby. Stifle 13:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chenfei Lu

Delete survived speedy, yet I still don't agree it is notable enough J.J.Sagnella 11:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unverifiable [10] [11]. - Liberatore(T) 15:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn anyway.Blnguyen 02:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Stifle 13:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. D e ath phoenix 18:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of marijuana slang terms

Delete. Listcruft and slang. Arundhati bakshi 11:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely. It is the responsibility of Wikipedia to be complete, including slang of all varieties. Couch 05:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFT Slang is for dictionaries, not encyclopedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arundhati bakshi (talk • contribs)

Do not delete Individual slang words are for a dictionary, but there are numerous articles of slang indexes related to a pasttime, culture, music style, etc. I have been revising this article greatly to make it a legitimate entry. Ludwjt5 03:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- You may want to make use of the {{inuse}} template if you are in the process of editing to let others know its a work in progress. Arundhati bakshi

Do not delete: I believe the internet, especially Wikipedia, should have full liberty of content. User-submitted content should not be modified or deleted. If we were to go about deleting content because it has slang terms for drugs, then why not just go ahead and delete any page with any drug references or profanity? Why not just remove every contraversial subject on Wikipedia including images on human reproductive anatomy? The reason is because it would just be further depriving people of their liberties and placing greater abridgements on our rights. Furthermore, the entire reason for limiting speech is to "protect our children." Our children are not being protected by being blinded. Please Wikipedia, understand that ieveryone should have the freedom to provide whatever information they wish on the internet and that this site, especially, should be no exeption. User:Morthian 22:18 EST, 15 February 2006
- I did not suggest deletion because there were references to drugs. I suggested deletion because wikipedia is not for lists of slangs. See what Wikipedia is not for more details. It specifically says in section 1.2 this is not a dictionary and not for slangs. Make it into a proper article (like the one on Bhang) and it might be a candidate for retention. Wikipedia is not for anything anyone wants to post but an encyclopedia and there are guideleines that must be followed. See 1.2 in above link for details. I said nothing about limitng speech or protecting children in my vote to delete, but voted to delete because this is not an article, just a list of non-notable slang. Other drug references or articles on human anatomy are real articles, not lists of slangs. If they aren't, they should also be deleted or placed within a sensible context. Arundhati bakshi 11:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  - I see. Sorry about that. Although, I would think that a list like this would be in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary or thesaurus, as these terms are not just synonyms. I suppose the definitions of the slang terms could be defined in a dictionary under each word, but then that defeats the purpose of a list. Perhaps some people like reading up on the list and learning various street terms. I haven't really looked into this type of situation too much, so perhaps I am wrong about the article's placement. As long as the deletion of the article has nothing to do with limitations of content, I am not really bothered. User:Morthian 15:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Hit err I mean Strong Delete - WP is not a dictionary. But Wiktionary is and already has an entry about this: Wiktionary:Wiktionary Appendix:Cannabis Slang. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as listcruft... It has nothing to do with "protecting the children". Shit, most of them probably know this slang by High School. It has to do with this being a contextless list of slang terms. And I'm disappointed you don't have Northern Lights on there...--Isotope23 15:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki merge to Wictionary article above (this list does have terminology the Wiktionary list lacks). --Karnesky 16:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Neutral. This is not just slang terms for MJ; it's slang terms related to MJ culture. There is not a place on Wiktionary to collect all this information together, and it seems like an interesting list.--ragesoss 20:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- A place can be created on wiktonary for this. As noted above, WP isn't a slang dictionary. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just taking a closer look at that. It seems intuitively to me like WP is a more appropriate place for this than wiktionary, so I suppose I disagree with that bit of policy, but I don't really have grounds to argue for keeping a particular case.--ragesoss 20:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, unmaintainable. Add links to external lists to main article - that makes sense. Pavel Vozenilek 21:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete slnag-list-cruft.Blnguyen 02:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki merge to Wictionary as suggested by Karnesky. Crypticfirefly 05:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a repository for lists of words. Stifle 13:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
See Military slang, List of lumberjack jargon, List of slang used in hip-hop music, etc. Are these also of no reference value? Ludwjt5 19:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- They have some reference value, but none belong in an encyclopaedia. Arundhati bakshi 04:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
People interested in this debate might also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of US railfan jargon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK railfan jargon (2nd nomination). --Karnesky 16:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Jargon is slightly, but significatly, different from slang. Slang is very current and mutable, whereas jargon tends to be more fixed. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. These jargon lists are very useful for understanding many of the articles here so why not marijuana? The terms have enormous reference value and properly belong in an encyclopedia article that can provide a scholarly overview of usage with context and sources. -- JJay 22:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per JJay. While Wikipedia is not a dictionary, neither is Wictionary an encylopedia, and an encylopedia seems the best place for this article. Turnstep 00:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Do you think Wiktionary:Wiktionary Appendix:Cannabis Slang should be merged to here, then? In what way is the article (a list of defined jargon) better-suited for an encyclopedia? --Karnesky 11:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep I would suggest modifying the entry to reference context of the phrases, but the information should stay, even in its current form. 05:26, 20 February 2006 (CST)
Delete. Unverifiable, indiscriminate, unmaintainable stonercruft. This list is like open season for things made up in school one day. -- Krash (Talk) 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep if our encyclopedia has to play host to List of ethnic slurs and other lists of slang, this is certainly keepable. Carlossuarez46 19:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I know this is a strange vote for me but there is a lot of confusion in the medical community regarding illicit drug use. Half of them are completely sheltered and have no idea what anything is. The other half, admittedly, know too much and could write such lists. The former need access and education about this topic. Ifnord 23:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, but surely this list should be a wikitonary appendix, not a wikipedia article? --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Rename Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but wiktionary does not maintain glossaries or lists whereas wikipedia does. Propose rename to List of marijuana cultural slang, since this list isn't composed entirely of synonyms for marijuana. Shaggorama 01:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- What do you call Wiktionary Appendix:Cannabis_Slang? --Karnesky 14:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki with separare article for each entry. Add a suitable category indicating they are drug usage related slangs to bind them, the purpose for which this have been put on Wikipedia in the first place. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, discounting possible socks and meats. D e ath phoenix 18:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Brent

Nonsense. At best as the article says it's a "minor cult craze" CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
KEEP I have been looking for this for a while and finally "The Brent" has been explained to me! Thank you for the explanation!! MONTHS of my life have been wasted in Libraries looking in encyclopaedia’s for the explanation of this phrase!! NOW I FINALLY HAVE ONE!!! Thank you!! THANK YOU!! THANK YOU!!!! ~~User:Dainger~~ 13:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.233.236 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 February 2006.
Delete. Not really notable. Arundhati bakshi 12:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Can't help thinking it's a hoax. Gtabary 12:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I dunno - I'm a fan of 'the office' and I've noticed a lot of people adopting this pose for "comedy effect" - numerous times on a recent round the world trip. I certainly don't think it's a hoax. It's a new page so maybe we should leave it to see where it goes - I'm sure the entry for flash mob probably started something like this... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.169.129.163 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 16 February 2006.
Delete If anything to negate one of the two keep votes by Mr 80.47.233.236 Ruby 14:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete is there a subsection of made up in school one day that covers made up while on a gap year? MLA 15:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per sockpuppetry by 80.47.233.236 (talk · contribs). -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC) ~~Reconsidering vote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)~~ Vote reconsidered... but still a delete as notability not established. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, but a comment that the way sock puppets vote isn't a criteria for deletion. Mark the votes of sock puppets, but recall that their multiple votes won't be considered as stronger consensus. --Karnesky 16:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously I was being a bit facetious with my phrasing, but I think it is legitimate to take into account, when notability is one of the criteria that brings an article to AfD, whether there's evidence that points to an attempt to manufacture an appearance of notability. In this case that evidence turned out to be mistaken, but I think it's a legitimate consideration. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Clarification only I am user 80.169.129.163 - I want to point out that I made one of the Keep votes - they are not both by user 80.47.233.236 as alleged. I will get a sign in asap. I'm new to this so didn't know the protocol. I was only weighing in cos I had genuinely seen a lot of people doing this (to MLA - I was not claiming to have made it up on my gap year - I saw it happening on several occasions during a (3 month) holiday. I have not myself done one (yet!)) . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.169.129.163 (talk •

Thanks for noticing that. I was having a rotten time about then and didn't see the two different numbers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Little verifiable evidence of this "minor cult craze" having much following. We might want to check the copyright status of the photo too. Capitalistroadster 18:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Copyright in the screenshot is probably owned by the BBC (this was an in-house BBC production). I'm a UK-qualified IP lawyer and I'd say the inclusion was probably justified under UK "fair dealing" principles. I believe Wikipedia runs on the US "fair use" doctrine which is significantly more relaxed and so the inclusion is more likely to be OK. In any event, copyright infringement should only realy be a reason for deletion if the page infringes copyright as a whole, not (for example) just because a single element may be problematic. The picture can be removed easily. --TMMABPTY 15:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, unverifiable, notability not established. Pavel Vozenilek 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable neologism. (Kind of reminds me of Chac Mool...) --Kinu ^t/_c 01:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete this nonsense.Blnguyen 02:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
KEEP. I have seen this done at office christmas parties and now have done it myself. As for notability not being established, perhaps the inclusion of this has to wait until it gets in the press before being published on Wiki? I note there is also a page on the Macarena. Should that be deleted as being trivial? As far as neologisms are concerned, surely a neologism is only such until it becomes an accepted or widely spread part of the common language? (Manager-Speak, Buzzwords, helicopter-view, etc.) I also thought the comments on an AfD discussion were supposed to be non-inflammatory. "Delete this nonsense" from Blngyen? With all due respect, Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies? (Who watches the watchers?)Shema2 12:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC) This is Shema2 (talk · contribs)'s only edit.
Keep Bizarre. I didn't realise it was actually this widespread. A lot of my friends do this too, and one of them even persuaded Anthony from Big Brother to do one when he entered the house last year! That was fairly notable I'd say.Geordie Boy 12:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC) This is Geordie Boy (talk · contribs)'s only edit.
Keep A little Anglocentric perhaps but notable in my book and clearly cannot be described as a "hoax". My little brother came back from university last Christmas quite obsessed with "Brenting", as he calls it. Unless "sometimes done by students" is a criterion for deletion...--TMMABPTY 15:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC) At the time of this vote, TMMABPTY (talk · contribs) had seven edits, all to AfDs.
Keep To nip the thinly-veilled newbie bullying in the bud before it happens - yes, I have only made a few edits too. But when I have managed to get out now and again in the past couple of years I have DEFINITELY noticed this behaviour going on.--Gianniv45 00:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC) This vote represents Gianniv45 (talk · contribs)'s ninth and tenth edits.
- Sorry you perceive it as "thinly-veiled newbie bullying" going on, but Wikipedia perceives this well-established practice of noting "votes" from very new users as its protection against "sockpuppets", "meatpuppets", and other attempts to make the AfD reflect the views and perhaps the ulterior motives of a small group of newcomers, rather than the experience and judgement of established Wikipedians. You may think this is "unfair", but I suggest to you that that is an illusion caused by the fact that Wikipedia offers you uncommon latitude in editing its pages. Would you expect that any other non-wiki website would give you a major voice in determining its affairs simply for showing up and making seven, eight, nine, contributions before saying "My voice must be counted!"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete this non-notworthy neologism. Also discount sock puppet/meat puppet votes. Ifnord 23:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Obli (Talk)^? 19:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 blank page, former hoax. Capitalistroadster 18:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken holmes

From Google this appears unverifiable and based on its misnaming I suspect a hoax. Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Seems NN Maustrauser 11:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
delete. Can not verify it either on article title or partial name or things like "kingdom of africa". Gtabary 12:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Orphaned prince with no where to reign --Ruby 14:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. PJM 14:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete lack of verifiable references. Sliggy 14:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment now blanked by its creator and sole editor, which I think makes it a speedy candidate. David | Talk 16:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 13:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilhelm Otto Kühne

Not notable. No Google hits. eLNuko 11:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I can not verify information for the keys (partial, combinations,...) I can search on yields only german language documents. So I'd say, please give clear anglish language references or delete. Gtabary 12:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment if indeed he was one of the first children's authors in the Afrikaans language, to me that makes him notable, as he is a pioneer of a language's literature. James Kendall [talk] 12:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. What do you mean, "no Google hits"? I got your Google hits right here. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 13:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Edits and references convinced me. I would recall my proposal for deletion, if I could. eLNuko 13:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- You can. Just be bold in the future. I'll close the present AfD for you. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 13:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Ben Bradshaw (entertainer). I am applying admin's discretion in this case, since two people voted merge to Ben Bradshaw, one to Escapology, two for keep, and two for delete. D e ath phoenix 21:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fastest Straitjacket Escape

This rehashes much material available elsewhere in Wikipedia and is too Australian centric to belong at this title. Merge back anything new in Ben Bradshaw, delete if there's nothing new. BTW, it would require some research, but I'm pretty sure there's some non-Australians who were faster. Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment He does indeed hold the world record. James Kendall [talk] 12:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. The article could conceivably expand into a history of the record. The problem at the moment is not Australian-centrism, but focussing on the current world record holder. JPD (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep and expand. <Australia? you mean one of those funny little places off the coast of America?? >}:-)> JCUK 14:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete I don't want an article about one record stunt Ruby 14:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge with either Ben Bradshaw or List of world records. PJM 14:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete and merge whats useful to the person's article. The List of records uis quite well maintained, please do not pollute it with such crap. TIA Pavel Vozenilek 21:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Right; with entries such as Most Swearing In An Animated Movie: South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, 399 swear words, I can see why you wouldn't want any "crap" added to it. PJM 22:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep with expansion, or barring that merge. JoshuaZ 03:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Escapology -- Karada 00:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom (Talk) 13:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troop 11

One of many thousands of Troops, none of which merit a Wikipedia article. Additionally, this article is only on ONE of the many Troop 11's in the country. Habap 12:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, as article says "you can delete this now". Also it was already PRODed. JPD (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coincidences and synchronicities related to September 11, 2001 attacks

Article treads that uneasy borderline between Original research and Complete bollocks. Grutness...wha? 12:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Per above. Arundhati bakshi 13:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Probably a POV fork too. Stifle 13:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and POV. Paul Carpenter 13:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 13:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, POV. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ruby 14:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Do Not Delete -- Darwin Tallhouse 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this stub, and you would have to have been paying no attention to the aftermath of 9/11 to have failed to have encountered widespread reports of "coincidences" or "synchronicities" surrounding the events of that day. Bear in mind that those two words are often used as synonyms for one another but they carry opposite implications -- a "coincidence" is considered to be pure happenstance, with no implied actual connection between events that are coinciding; "synchronicity" on the other hand implies that there may be an actual connection. The distinction is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm not suggesting that any perceived connection is verifiably so.

The bottom line is this: Coincidences surrounding 9/11 have been widely noted and have had a presence and impact culturally at the very least.

My piece IS A STUB -- I defined the topic and provided two categorically different examples, and that is what they are -- examples only. This is followed by an invitation to add to these examples. I do think the quality of the examples added would need to be monitored, but the topic itself is legitimate AS a topic -- I make no claims, and the article makes no claims, as to the significance of any coincidences described or discussed.

Thanks for your time. I respectfuly ask you, and everyone else who has already voted, to reconsider your vote.

Darwin Tallhouse 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per author's explanation above. You violated WP:NOR. ikkyu2 (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete; Yes, obvious delete now after author's admission above. Badgerpatrol 17:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per WP:NOR and suggest the author follow that link and read it.--Isotope23 17:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My main point is this: "Coincidences surrounding 9/11 have been widely noted and have had a presence and impact culturally at the very least." "Widely noted" means a cultural phenomenon is occurring and to that extent is an "object" in the world and hence worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia that purports to cover objects in the world.

I am new to the site, and have only just now skimmed the policy statement, which seems sensible and I wish to support it. It may be the article should be revised in light of it. But it's not a "pet theory" of mine, merely a fact of cultural life in the time since 9/11, one that deserves to be documented accurately and in an unbiased manner.

Darwin Tallhouse 17:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but for something to be encyclopedic, it needs to be supported by a verifiable, independent source. What I mean by that is there needs to be an exterior website, scientific journal, etc that has already covered this topic (in the case of your comments above, the supposed cultural phenomenon of "Coincidences or Synchornicities surrounding 9/11"). Generally speaking, message boards, blogs, and personal websites are not seen as a verifable, neutral source. For even a rewritten article on this topic to exist here and not be subjected to an AfD, you will need to demonstrate that a credible source has already documented this as a cultural phenomenon. WP:V will help you understand the criteria. --Isotope23 18:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Darwin, I appreciate your openness and willingess to discuss. What Isotope23 just said. To give an example, when one person notices the Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences, it doesn't get an article. After it's been discussed in magazines and mentioned in books about the two presidents and been made the subject of a Father Guido Sarducci comedy special, then it gets an article. Thatcher131 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Isotope23, Thatcher131, thank you for your sensible comments. Thatcher131, your point on Lincoln/Kennedy coincidences is apt, and I certainly agree with you. I believe that the verification you request can be provided; clearly, though, I should have done more research before posting. I will endeavor to track down the qualtiy of verification required. How long can you give me? Or should my article be taken down in the interim? Just for starters, though, anyone googling "9/11 coincidences" will certainly get an eyeful, if not a laugh! Best Wishes, Darwin Tallhouse 19:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the AfD process takes about a week, however by the end of that time many fewer people are paying attention and it would be hard to change the delete consensus that has developed. Also, if the article is deleted via the AfD process and you put it up again later, it may be nominated for speedy deletion. If I were you (and I was, when I first joined) I would swallow my pride, blank the page, and tag it yourself for speedy deletion. (Unfortunately since other people have edited it you can't use G7 only author, you have to use G1 patent nonsense.) You can then set up the article on your own user page and work on it without interference until you've got it in a more encylopedic format, then put it up again in the main space. If you speedied your own first attempt then your second attempt should get a fair hearing based on its new content. Thatcher131 20:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment, there is already a perfectly good article at 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I would like to voluntarily take down my article; what would be the best way to do that? Darwin Tallhouse 13:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Add {{db|Only contributor has chosen that this should be deleted}} to the top of the article Paul Carpenter 15:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The speedy deletion message has been inserted and I approve of the speedy deletion. Darwin Tallhouse 18:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamtaro: The Comic Series

Three reasons: Google only shows 135 results, hosted at some free website and the forum has no more than 8 members. Fails WP:WEB entirely. Soothing R 12:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ruby 14:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. PJM 14:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - While I don't think the fact it's hosted for free means anything, (many noteworthy webcomics are still on free hosting sites) this still is undoubtedly nn. -- Zaron 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, however, that was not my main argument. I just used it to extend the support for my opinion that this comic is not notable enough for its own article at Wikipedia.Soothing R 21:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete NN sprite webcomic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. HotWings 03:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Angus

Orginally a slander page, I cropped it down to the single verifiable fact. Was tagged as a prod by myself and user:Conscious; with the reason that he is not-notable. But the prod tag was removed by the same user(s) who keep re-adding the same unsourced 'facts'. Suggest it be deleted and replaced with a deleted page message to prevent re-creation. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom,WP:NMG, and WP:BIO. [12]. PJM 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn bio Ruby 14:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, delete... Conscious 20:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 16:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goliza

Inept non-english dicdef. Sandstein 12:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete — there is an identical page on wiktionary.[13] — RJH 15:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Already transwikied... and what's the London Free Press have to do with it? (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 graph paper. D e ath phoenix 21:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Index paper

Delete or possibly redirect. This seems silly. How can paper be brittle unless it's old, and isn't this just graph paper, anyway? Or is the author thinking about India paper? BobbyLee 13:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete This is just graph paper Ruby 14:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to graph paper.Bjones 14:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to graph paper per Bjones. --Lockley 14:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy redirect as above. Batmanand 15:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color Greetings

Original research. Bobby1011 14:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom.Bjones 14:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete No context, I don't even know what this is about --Ruby 15:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense, but sadly only pat. pending, so not speediable. Could well have been {{Prod}}ded, though. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Enough said. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 22:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nice class

I can't find any uses of this term in the wild, even using Google. I've been a C++ programmer for over a decade and have never heard it. Smells like a neologism. Jorend 14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep I get 567 hits for "nice class" object-oriented --Ruby 14:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't clear that many or most of them are using the phrase in the sense described in the article, however. --Craig Stuntz 16:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per google test, although if lots of other C++ programmers come and say that there is no such thing as this concept, please contact me on my Talk page and I will change my vote. Batmanand 15:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC) OK change of vote in light of comments below; now delete. Batmanand 22:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Counting Google hits may be very misleading: the only reference to this definition I could find is [14]; all other sites in the first two Google pages use "nice" for "fine", "good". - Liberatore(T) 15:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Craig Stuntz 16:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I've been a C++ programmer for about as long as Jorend and never come across it before either. There is a brief discussion about it on the original author's talk page, and my reading is that it is indeed a neologism. Jll 17:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete neologism. Drilling down into the google hits, even those in relation to C++, don't support this usage. Most of them are compliments on code written as Paolo Liberatore mentioned. Beyond that, I'm not a programmer but I've been testing/analyzing software & code for almost as many years as Jorend has been writing it and I've never heard this term either.--Isotope23 17:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I've never run across this as a term in OO programming. -Satori ^(talk) 00:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism for a class which is well-behaved. —Ruud 01:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete neologism --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Sounds like some professor's course-specific jargon. --bmills 04:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-20 13:14Z
Delete: neologism, POV (I don't think C++ is very nice). --Mgreenbe 14:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karmein Chan

Yes please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluepancake (talk • contribs)

Keep. Subject of media attention, gets over 4000 google hits as well.Soothing R 16:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
(Eww... confirming my belief that the human race needs a giant mental enema.) Merge/Redirect to Mr Cruel. Thanks. — RJH 16:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is not Wikinews. Stifle 13:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Greenwood

Was prod, but someone (possibly the kid himself User:Ste g) contested it on the talk page without editing the article itself. So I'm bringing it here. He's a seventeen year old filmmaker from West Yorkshire. No vote. NickelShoe 15:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 15:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 16:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. Bad ideas 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn bio --Ruby 19:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn bio Maustrauser 07:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. D e ath phoenix 21:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smedskjaer's law

Unverifiable (very few Google hits [15], which should be strange for something referring to the Internet). Was prod'ed, but the tag was removed. - Liberatore(T) 15:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete zero Ghits which do not reference back to this article --Ruby 19:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOR. Stifle 13:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete neo-law-ism (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as vanity/patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 17:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunter Macdonald

Delete. Non-notable university student. Unencyclopedic. According to the bio, he is best known for "helping to organize social events such as a keg party in his residence." Darkcore 15:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Non notable biography. Also, the article contains nonsense: Hunter was not "born" like most people, but formed from a primordial soup of beer and vomit.Soothing R 16:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy I've tagged it as such under CSD:A7.--Isotope23 17:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter: Book Seven (film)

Is this really necessary? Yes, eventually, this article will be created in the tune of the other films in the Harry Potter series that aren't in production yet, but the book hasn't even been named yet. Why do we need an article for a film that doesn't even have a proper name yet? Delete for being a crystal ball article on a film that hasn't even been named yet based on a book that hasn't even been named yet. --D e ath phoenix 15:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete; I've nothing in principle against an article for a film without a proper name, so long as there are concrete facts that can be stated. At present, there isn't; the article is just speculation, and is likely to remain so for some time to come. Fourohfour 16:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, crystalballism.Soothing R 16:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, at minimum until the book is actually published. - Mike Rosoft 17:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete all articles for unreleased movies based on unreleased books that are not only not yet written, but don't even have a title. Book seven itself is, I think, acceptable to have around, but the movie of book seven is, like...crystal balling the crystal ball. Lord Bob 17:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above Compu te r Jo e 18:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete until the seventh book hits the street --Ruby 19:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Crystal ball, per above. --light darkness ^(talk) 19:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. BobbyLee 21:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

user has no edits before today. Lord Bob 21:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Jonathan235. You need to know about future films, even if they don't have a title yet. There was the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) before the release of the book.
- Delete. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) was nothing more than a redirect to the article about the book until four days before the book was published. There is nothing useful that can be written about the film of the seventh Harry Potter book yet. --Metropolitan90 02:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete... way too much crystal ballery (even the article admits it, with all those hypothetical phrases used). --Kinu ^t/_c 06:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Extreme crystal ballery. At the very least, redirect to Harry Potter: Book Seven to discourage recreation. H e rmione1980 14:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Treznor 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Crystal ball EivindFOyangen 03:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Book Seven is not even out yet, maybe after Book Seven is released. --Ter enc e Ong 12:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete absolutly delete this totally unneccessary big shiny crystal ball of an article. How on earth can we have an article on the film adaptation of a book that hasn't even been published yet. Death Eater Dan 12:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Don't count the chickens before they are hatched; at least never before the cock and the hen are married! Cygnus_hansa 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. D e ath phoenix 21:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NU NRG

Unknown group either in Italy and in Europe... It has been proposed for deletion in Italy and will be deleted. They go by NU NRG and Andrea Ribeca and Giuseppe Ottaviani. get less than 400 hits if you exclude WIKI from sources (see [16]) Selfadvertising? --- [[Alexxandros 15:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep, it's notable: aprox. 151.000 Google hits (see [17]) --Neigel von Teighen 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Delete. You're right, guys. It must be deleted: becaused it's totally non-notable and because I had been treasoned by this article's name! --Neigel von Teighen 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Niegel. You have done a "name" search. Nu NRG is a name in Asia!!!! :))

it is like to search John in USA. you have 78 million hits!

Keep. I'd like to draw your attention to [18]. It says "Dreamland" made it into the German ODC TOP 40 charts and was also featured on Paul van Dyk's Album "The Politics Of Dancing". That's two reasons to keep the article. Also, please stop holding conversations with yourself/ someone else using your account.Soothing R 16:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul Van Dyk's is the producer.

Not just that, he discovered the duo. Most new acts are discovered by (non-notable) talent-scouts.

Soothing R 18:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: it's not currently proposed for deletion in the Italian Wikipedia (see it:Nu NRG, there is only a neutrality tag). I dont't understand how that works, but apparently the nomination was not completed and another editor removed it. - Liberatore(T) 19:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- The original entry by the name of the two artist ha been voted for deletion and been deleted. Shortly after someone created a new "Nu Enr" entry, which has been labelled with a Neutrality tag and voted for removal. IMHO I dont' really care if they are "in or out" but seem non notable yet. To make it once in the German Hit can occur, but is it notable? Should wiki host a "TOP OF THE POP" where such group can be listed and traced to be then "moved" into WIKI when become notable??? Regards and thanks to all. [[[User talk:Alexxandros|Alexxandros]]
Keep, made it into the German ODC Top 40 charts. Kappa 00:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO I dont' really care if they are "in or out" but seem non notable yet. To make it once in the German Hit can occur, but is it notable? Should wiki host a "TOP OF THE POP" where such group can be listed and traced to be then "moved" into WIKI when become notable??? Regards and thanks to all. [[[User talk:Alexxandros|Alexxandros]]
  - Yes, they become notable once they harvest a hit. See WP:MUSIC; Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country. .Soothing R 18:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment . NU NRG is much better known as a genre of music stemming from Happy Hardcore. Unfortunately most of people interested are too high on ecstacy to make wiki articles. freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 10:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 23:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gloucestered

A slang term; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As flies to wanton boys are we to AfD; they Delete us for their sport. ikkyu2 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Best AfD vote ever. Or at least since I've been watching :) Adrian Lamo ·· 04:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Local slang. Very local. --Ruby 19:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I live 60 miles from Limerick and I'm a major rugby fan, and I haven't heard of it. Stifle 13:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Stifle. Treznor 02:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ignore

Delete - dictionary entry. Duplicates information already in the ignore entry at Wiktionary. delldot | talk 17:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete nom. ikkyu2 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, dicdef. Bad ideas 19:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] College Prowler

Promotional. Does this 186-page book have anything to make it more notable than its peers? FreplySpang (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nn.Blnguyen 02:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Stifle 13:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three Component Meal

I think this article's unredeemable. It's unreferenced and almost certainly original research (meat causes cancer? vegetable juices irritate the stomach? Carbohydrates are "moderately harmless?"), and it is a POV fork from Food guide pyramid. It's also never going to have a worldwide perspective. 16 Google hits, which boil down to Wikipedia references and one article from a journal of food science. ikkyu2 (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete opinion, original research, unverifiable. Thatcher131 19:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research. Jll 19:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle 13:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Kingfox 19:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete ditto above, no "real" content human 05:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 16:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mickey's Bitch

AfD improperly formatted. Listing now. ikkyu2 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - doesnt't meet WP:MUSIC Budgiekiller 17:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(i) Sorry about the broken AfD - Wiki was dead/dying when I was trying to use four tabs on Safari - I dunno what I've done...!

No problem - I think it's fixed now. :) -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated... Budgiekiller 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

(ii) The band exists nowhere. Budgiekiller 22:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No opinion. ikkyu2 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Move to User space and delete. This article, about a "Pebble Rock" band formed last month, does not assert notability. It was created by User:Kieran H and the band's Electric Guitarist is Kieran Herbert. Sliggy 22:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say move but Wikipedia should not act as a free internet hosting, and they have their own dot com page anyway. So, delete. -- Greaser 06:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viable Vision

This is an article that was, pretty much, previous deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viable Vision. However, it's approach to the topic is less adverty than before, and the article is not really a substantially identical recreation. I'm making this nomination on behalf of User:NickelShoe who I imagine will call by shortly. -Splash^talk 17:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment I was actually moving it here from prod on behalf of User:Rob9874, who states on the talk page, "I'm not sure why this is being considered for deletion. Viable Vision is a popular concept with business that utilize TOC methodologies. I would like to see this article stay." This is not the same username as the article's originator. NickelShoe 18:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, clean up, and expand~~. After further review, Delete. See below. [19]. PJM 18:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)~~
- If you're going to rely on nothing but a Google search, please at least construct it properly. All you've just found is every website in the world contain either or both of the words "viable" and "vision". -Splash^talk 18:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not the search I wanted to link (see below). I always try a couple of variations when I'm dealing with a not so unique name or term. Sometimes I find Google to be the best way for me to form an opinion; despite this bad example. PJM 19:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

- Note further that even the correct Google search is completely irrelevant in pure number terms since the phrase "we have a viable vision" (etc) is all over it. Simple Googlecounting is not a useful tool for this terminology. "Viable Vision" Goldratt on the other hand yields only 240 unique hits (and has less than 1000 to start with, so that problem isn't there either). -Splash^talk 18:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Very much a botched job on my part. I meant to link my 2nd search which was [20]. I was under the wrong impression that this Viable Vision was linked to the book and it struck me as something worth expanding. I slipped and fell on this one. Call me human. PJM 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, notability questionable. Lord Bob 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Lord Bob Maustrauser 07:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete all the rewriting in the world, sadly, does not make it more notable. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

~~The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Power Rangers: SPD. sigh, this might take a little while. D e ath phoenix 21:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)~~

[edit] A-Squad SPD Rangers

~~nn. 56 google hits for "A-Squad SPD Rangers" Compu te r Jo e~~ 18:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Details of a popular kids TV show. -- Wikipedical 00:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge to [[Power Rangers Space Patrol Delta}]. Stifle 13:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 23:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge as User:Stifle says. Copysan 06:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. D e ath phoenix 21:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Therebelution.com

~~This American blog has no alexa rank at all.~~ I don't see how we could consider this a significant website. Friday (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Correction: While the URL listed on the page has no alexa rank, another URL for the same blog has a little under 700K, see below. This is still way too high, so I stand by the nomination for now even though it was initially incorrect. Friday (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

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

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

~~Keep~~ -- the web site has received coverage in the New York Daily News (link on article page), which already makes it meet WP:WEB. The article author claims the web site has received several blog awards, but has not included them on the page, yet. This deletion nomination is too early to be one based on the quality of the article; it was only written hours ago. Note that I suggested the creation of this page (see User talk:AlexHarris) because the blog does appear to be notable, but its creators are not, except under the blog's article. Give the author a chance to write the article! Mangojuice 19:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Change that to Weak keep -- WP:WEB mentions multiple coverages, so the one alone isn't enough, and I couldn't find the blog awards, so that's up to the author to find. Also, let me note that the site is hosted at blogger.com, which explains its alexa rank: it actually does have an Alexa rank of 696K-something: [21], which isn't too bad for a blog. Mangojuice 19:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  - I'd now vote for speedy delete as the page author (User:AlexHarris) and only significant contributor requests it. Mangojuice 05:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Comment: I still don't see how a single mention in a paper makes it meet WP:WEB. Also, my nom is based solely on the article's topic, not the current content. My opinion so far is that the topic of this article is an unremarkable website. If the article is going to go away for having an unencyclopedic topic, I'd hate for the poor guys to put lots of work into it. Friday (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Also note that WP:WEB wants way, way more traffic than a 700K alexa suggests. Friday (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The site in question just switched domains. It has received nearly 160,000 hits since last August and receives over 1,200 hits a day (see Sitemeter). AlexHarris 23:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The article has been briefly updated, but may be removed if either of you consider it unencylopedic. It was only written as an edit to an inaccurate (and slightly deragatory) article created by a third party. AlexHarris 00:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Update: The blog in question was awarded a 2005 Weblog Award (a well-known, annual event in the blogosphere) for its TTLB category, hosted by Wizbang. If that qualifies as an independent and well-known award... It would appear to meet the WP:WEB. If not, then you may remove the article. AlexHarris 00:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a great blog, keep the article. The Rebelution is very popular among young teens. bethbookitty 08:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comments: I have no idea what's considered a "reputable" blog award, so if someone who knows about this can comment, that would be great. Also, I see mention of Alexa has been moved out of WP:WEB, so I think I was remembering an older version when I was thinking the number should be far lower than 700K (10K was the rule of thumb I was remembering.) In comparision, a site who's webserver I administer has an alexa rank of 53K and has been around for over 10 years, but we would never consider for a second trying to make a wikipedia article about it- it's an insignificant website in the grand scheme of things. BTW- we don't care how great the blog is - that's completely irrelevant to our purposes here. Friday (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This Is a great blog! You really should keep the article. Very popular, won awards, loved by many. I think that the Rebelution article should stay. Kara Gemmill 21:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
In reply to a former comment: With all due respect, someone said that, "it [the Rebelution]is an insignificant website in the grand scheme of things." Aren't spoons insignifiant in the "Grand scheme of things?" You have an article about them. Why can't you have an article about a highly influencial website?Kara Gemmill 02:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the previous user. What exactly is the purpose of Wikipedia but to inform? Would not a popular blog article inform more, than an eraser article? Yes, within Wikipedia an article concerning erasers exists. How can this possibly be useful information? Bethbookitty 03:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE: Thank you everyone for your support. I personally don't think that therebelution.com can claim the same encylopedic relevance as erasers or spoons, but rest assured that I am very grateful for your defense of the article. I know each of you will verify that absolutely no attempt was made to alert anyone of the article or its status. As was said before, this article was written as an edit/rewrite of a slightly humorous version of the same by a third party. Our blog does not need, and arguably does not deserve, an entry on Wikipedia. Therefore, I think it would be best to remove the article for the time being. Thank you again. AlexHarris 21:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Alexa rank 2,400,000-something. - Andre Engels 10:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. D e ath phoenix 21:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oswald, Grey College, Durham

Article about a non-notable building, being used to promote unencyclopedic prank. I tried to redirect this to Grey College, Durham a couple of times, but this was reverted. Delete or Speedy delete if possible. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read the categories for articles that should be deleted I think you will find that this does not fall into one of them. It is not a prank, it is a piece of art, and is notable by 12,000 students. I imagine you can find better things to do with your time, or more useless articles to put up for deletion. It was actually still a work in progress with more information about the building when you started medling with my article. This may not be notable to you personally, but I'm sure there are people who would appreciate the article. <--comment added by user:62.56.63.205

Please do not add subsections to the page, and please sign your comments with four tildes. Thatcher131 20:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, your vandlism of my user page doesn't excatly help your case. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 20:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Can this be speedied? Thatcher131 20:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Grey College article. The Snow Penis stuff is nonsense and has no place in Wikipedia. --Bduke 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

JiFish won't listen to anyone that doesn't agree with 'him' <--comment added by user:62.56.63.205.

That is probably because the consensus is with JiFish and not with user:62.56.63.205. --Bduke 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, or weak merge the non-snow penis related information into the Grey College article, per Bduke. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Individual buildings of Durham colleges may be notable, but I would have a hard time arguing for any that weren't Durham Castle. Snow sculptures of dubious taste are not exactly unknown in Durham; I remember a dozen or so. Delete, or redirect to Grey without bothering to merge. Shimgray | talk | 16:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete: If I had an article for everytime I build a snow penis...Nothing to merge, redirect would only allow anons to recreate it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 16:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wealthman

Protologism. Google hits seem to refer to something else (e.g. Commonwealthsman). Weregerbil 18:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I left Marlborough 3 years ago and the term is very much still in use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.231.252 (talk • contribs)

Delete. Slang dicdef. NOT a slang dictionary. ikkyu2 (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ikkyu2. Stifle 13:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ergot 16:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a term that is frequenlty used in the upper echelons of society up here in Edinburgh.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emoticon Creators

Dont Delete - I only know of my emoticon creator, so thats why theres only mine there. However if anyone wants to add more to the list then please be my guest. I am not advertising as i have enough visitors and users already (not from google before that pagerank rubbish is posted, there more than google in the world guys!), was just wanting to share with the wiki community. However if you decided to delete then ok... --Tpvgames
Delete - Article seems to be clearly an advertisement for the (only) author's website which isn't particularly notable to begin with. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 18:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
>_< (or if you prefer text, Delete).--み使い Mitsukai 20:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Advertisement, not-notable, vanity article. Georgewilliamherbert 20:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per GeorgeWilliamHerbert --Ruby 03:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episode List for UNPERFECTION

Sounds like a TV series, but no IMDB entry, 0 relevant Ghits, page created by someone who says he is in it. either a hoax or ultra-nn. MNewnham 18:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I brought this to AFD instead of Prod to cover for my total lack of knowledge on popular TV MNewnham

Delete: no context, listcruft, not WP:V... you pick. It's not popular TV. Maybe podcruft or public access?--Isotope23 19:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete There is no Unperfection show --Ruby 19:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn/hoax --light darkness ^(talk) 19:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Vreenak Delete It's a FAAAAAAKKKKKEEEE! Obviously this hoax was... not perfect. *snicker* Ok, time to quit before I get shot. -AKMask 01:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halo of Thorns

Non-notable band. The group has received local radio airtime and has released only one album, on their home-made label. If article is deleted, J. Lugosi, Christopher Mortis, Gator (Halo of Thorns), and Sin & Decay (2006) should all be deleted also: those were nearly empty pages that reflected a subset of the information on the Halo of Thorns page, so I made them redirects to that page. Mangojuice 18:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete all per WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 19:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete all, as per Isotope23. PJM 19:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per Isotope --Ruby 03:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amongst The Dead

Was tagged nn-band, removed, tagged prod, removed. Still, this band fails WP:MUSIC. - Liberatore(T) 18:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 19:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ruby 19:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ennui house

Originally I prodded this page as 'non-encyclopedic', tag was removed by another editor with comment 'Its true', which isn't really the point, even if it is true, its still not worth a wikipedia entry. Google says 0 relevant hits MNewnham 19:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn. Sounds like somebody's college apartment. Thatcher131 19:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

keep this entry! the ennui house is a historical landmark, and must be remembered! [alex3]

Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Thatcher131 --Ruby 03:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per CSD A7. CrypticBacon 07:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Record Breaking Domain

Advertising. Google search on "TheRecordBreakingDomain" yields only Latvian SEO spam. Delete. PRiis 19:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Scoo 19:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete TheRecordBreakingDomain.com is a domain that has been set up with the sole purpose of becoming a record-breaking (in sale price) domain name....but it hasn't broken the record yet. --Ruby 03:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus default to a redirect to Alien (film) (there is nothing new to merge). D e ath phoenix 21:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thedus

non-notable fictional planet, mentioned but once by name in the movie Alien, thus trying to create something out of nothing. Scoo 19:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep There are other examples of obscure fictional places in the Narnia or Lord of the Rings set --Ruby 19:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I hear what Ruby is saying, but this was not much more than an incidental mentioning in the film. Anything beyond that would be fancruft, in my view. PJM 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fancruft is when you go far beyond the "canon" of the movies, as in the Star Wars Expanded Universe crap which occupies about half of wikipedia's server space. --Ruby 20:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree and that's exactly how I feel about having a stub based on a virtual throw-away line. PJM 20:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Slight Merge to Alien (film), at best. Stifle 13:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is a 2 sentence article without any possibility of expansion. Nothing is really known about the subject. While I don't mind fancruft, this does not warrant its own article. Compare to Star Wars, where Mygeeto doesn't get its own article, even though we see them on film and can write paragraphs about it. -LtNOWIS 22:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thedus is nothing but a dreamt up name for the departure point of Nostromo in the movie, we can deduce that it is a mining colony/world or a freight hub; the script for Aliens simply substituted "mining colony" with Thedus. As such, at the very most it might have an entry in an article about the Alien/(Predator) universe or planets/worlds or similar. Can't see though why it could remain as an article entirely on its own. Scoo 13:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete All information that would be of any use to anyone about Thedus is contained in the Alien article. Kietotheworld 22:38, 21 February 2006 (GMT)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. D e ath phoenix 22:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecoshamanism

A neologism coined by the Author of the book that is the sole source of reference for the article, thereby completing the referential circle of life. Book published by small publisher of new age material. A weak delete MNewnham 19:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as above.Blnguyen 03:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep There is a small footprint on google --Ruby 03:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Craig Stuntz 13:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom as neologism. Ifnord 23:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Google footprint is very small with 177 hits. Punkmorten 16:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:59] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Contact-field microscopy

Delete. Hoax article. Midgley 04:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete I can't find any non-Wikimirror Google hits, and even if this were a real thing this particular article is just unsourced OR. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. D e ath phoenix 22:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environetics

Neologism. This is my academic field, and I have never heard the term. It appears to be a neologism from a class at MIT: [22] This term is not used in the field. The hits in google scholar (14 total) are for products by companies with the apparently popular name "environetics". There are no hits for the word in Environmental Health Perspectives, the best-known journal of the field of environmental health (which encompasses toxicology, environmental epidemiology of toxic exposures, and logical issues of causation deriving from environmental exposures). I hate to rain on the parade of anyone in this field, but I don't see any sense in confusing people with unused terminology made up by a professor for reasons which are very unclear. I would consider supporting a redirect to Environmental health; otherwise, Delete. bikeable (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete, and BJAODN the image. Stifle 13:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 22:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Every Little Thing We Said Today

Non-notable website, has no Alexa data [23]. Akamad 19:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Ruby 19:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Just a website with someones own thoughts on the Beatles, non notable. --light darkness ^(talk) 20:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 23:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York State Route 365

Moved from speedy. Not sure that State highways are speediable. No vote. Vegaswikian 19:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep You must be joking, I myself participate in the Wiki project for Washington State highways --Ruby 19:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. By precedent, major numbered highways merit articles on Wikipedia. I've even created a couple myself. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep State routes are notable per precedent. Adrian Lamo ·· 20:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Precedent for now is that all roads that US states have bothered to number are notable for inclusion. youngamerican (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I have added some information and cleaned up the article a wee bit. BobbyLee 21:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep all state routes. -- Grev 18:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per all above. Ardric47 03:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. There are only about 2580 other U.S. highway articles. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep or else If you delete this, you delete about 1000 other articles.
Keep as above.Rt66lt 02:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yoshijurri

Vanity, attack - I don't know. A persona of Hunter Boggs who gets 55 Ghits. Created by Yoshijurri and has some claim of notability. Delete as non-notable.

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete not notable --Ruby 19:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. --Neigel von Teighen 19:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 23:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues

This is very strange. The AfD listing was made by a user who has been contributing to this page but it is incomplete and there is no notice on the article page. Beyond that, it is certainly difficult to make an NPOV article about a controversial topic but that's no reason to delete the whole page. Thatcher131 20:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The page seems very badly named, and it could stand some work to improve it, but I don't know if there's a valid reason to delete it as it could be noteworthy. As for me, I'm not sure which way I'd vote on this.--み使い Mitsukai 21:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I would tag it NPOV and let its editors work it out. There seems to be an active discussion. Whomever put it on AfD didn't give a reason. Thatcher131 21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I began this process without properly understanding it. I'm going to try a {{POV check}} on the article to help it get the attention it needs. joshbuddy 21:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep per original nom. Ordinarily, I'd criticize this as a POV fork, but both this and the JW article are so long and so extensively referenced that merging them would make the resultant article immense. In this case it simply appears to be a matter of branching an article in a reasonable way. ikkyu2 (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've linked this article from Jehovah's Witnesses as a branch article. ikkyu2 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep per ikkyu2. ergot 16:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edd Billig

Tagged as db-bio but notability is asserted, but not particularly convincingly. Maybe he is the next Su Doku world champion - or maybe not. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Google only turns up a handful of results, some on the Ed Edd n Eddy TV show. There is an article regarding his quest for grand mastership or whatever, but it doesn't really assert notability. Perhaps if he does become the grand master, and there is significant media coverage it'll stay, but delete for now. --light darkness ^(talk) 20:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. After conducting a Google search I found out that Edd was one of thousands attemting to be a Sudoku grandmaster. Not notable enough - yet. No Guru 23:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per No Guru --Ruby 01:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, (and move to Edward Billig if kept). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4693381.stm says he's not just one of thousands attempting to be a grandmaster, but actually won the thing. - Bobet 13:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Looks like he won a newspaper competiton. Not sure that sways me towards thinking he is notable enought to warrant an article, however. No Guru 02:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete – The Independent will crown another champ next year, but we may never hear from this player again. If that one contest was a really big deal, someone can add it — and this guy's name — to Su Doku. ×Meegs 00:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Studyloft.com

Delete This article seems to be pure advertising. Anguis 20:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Advertising
Delete per nom. EdGl 20:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Site has an alexa rating of 920,000. Has been online for almost a year, but the article is a blatant advertisment. Delete unless there is a major rewrite. --light darkness ^(talk) 20:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertising. Edgar181 22:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nike Impax Dime

Do we have articles on individual shoe models? If we do, we probably don't have ones written in quite these terms. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We've got Chuck Taylor All-Stars. But I don't think we've got room for advertising. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 20:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this so if you want to delete this article feel free because i'm working on new ones. -BallaCM

Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, I see nothing notable about this model, even to merge. By the way, on top of Chuck Taylor All-Stars, we're got Adidas 1, Dunk (footwear), Reebok Freestyle and Nike Air Max, but they're all iconic, long-survived, or somehow interesting. Actually, I'm not sure about that last one. ×Meegs 23:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. I have no problem with an individual shoe model having an article - so long as the shoe is somehow notable. Otherwise it's just spam. Ifnord 23:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ehsan Imdad

No books on Amazon, googling "Ehsan Imdad" only verifies the BANY presidency. I see no notability yet. Anyone can confirm notability? I don't want to cross WP:BIAS so its a weak delete for me. feydey 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. I came up with the same thing that you did; something about it seems as though it's copied from somewhere, so we might have to watch out for copyvio. In any case, I think it barely meets the criteria for a keep, but it's going to need some TLC and cleanup.--み使い Mitsukai 19:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Probably he exists. But he is not notable enought to deserve an article. utcursch | talk 11:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 20:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Unverifiable. Look at this for example, there has seriously nothing been written about the guy. I may be willing to change my vote if someone can come up with written sources, but I don't think that anyone is able to do that.Soothing R 22:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — ciphergoth 08:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ollie Mead-Briggs

Delete This appears to be vanity by a non-notable person. The article was written by Ollie mb (no link). The person recently competed in an U18s competition and has passed some exams. Avalon 20:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom;[24]. PJM 20:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - CSD A7, tagged as such. --light darkness ^(talk) 20:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Gandhi

Salute to All - I nominate this article for deletion because:

(1) The data is cut from Mahatma Gandhi and pasted to create a fork, undermining the quality and integrity of a featured article.

(2) There are no sources.

(3) It is not named as per Wikipedia naming conventions.

To add further, this fork was unilaterally created and should have been discussed first at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mahatma Gandhi/archive1. Rama's Arrow 21:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Rama's Arrow 21:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
If I ventured a guess, I'd say this is meant to be some sort of posthumous attack article. Normally something like that would fall under an A6, but since I don't know if that would be the case for someone deceased, I'll have to go with Strong delete.Delete as per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 21:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: No Mitsukai, its not an attack article, but a hasty and unnecessary creation of a well-meaning editor. Rama's Arrow 21:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Odd, as it seemed like someone was trying to do one without tipping the boat, yet not doing a good job of it. But since you say it's not, I'm probably overreacting. Changing my vote to reflect that.--み使い Mitsukai 21:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete As nom says it is unsourced, possibly OR and it feels as pretty shallow. Pavel Vozenilek 21:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. While an objective, sourced indexing of the viewpoints of Gandhi's peers might be valuable, this is simply not up to that standard - it's unsourced - and certainly not up to the editorial standard of the Gandhi article. I say toss it. ikkyu2 (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gandhi's comments on various religions

Salute to all - I nominate this article for deletion becoz:

(1) This is cut from Mahatma Gandhi and pasted, undermining the quality and integrity of the latter featured article.

(2) No sources cited (although presumably belonging to the Gandhi references).

(3) There already exists another article, Gandhism that deals with Gandhi's principles and views. This fork is a repeat and unnecessary. Rama's Arrow 21:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Rama's Arrow 21:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 21:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Comments should be shifted to Wikiquote [25] Sbohra 13:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord

[edit] Louis Israel Dublin

~~Took this off speedy since the most recent edit attempted to assert notability, but I'm still not sure it's enough to make this guy notable. (no vote yet).~~ EdGl 21:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Since this article now proves notability I withdraw my nomination. EdGl 20:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable statistician. I have added some external links to prove it. YUL89YYZ 21:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep Published books and many studies e.g. one that showed that Phi Beta Kappa men and honor students live longer than athletes and plain graduates. Dlyons493 Talk 22:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable enough. [26]. PJM 22:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notability now seems established. — TheKMan^talk 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total_Olympics_medal_count

This page should be deleted because the information it contains is factually inaccurate; the combined totals of the Winter Olympics and Summer Olympics medal pages add to more that what this page shows. While this can be fixed, the fact still remains that Winter Olmypic Medals and Summer Olympic Medals should not be added together because they are two totally different things. Further, many countries who participate in the Summer games do not participate in the winter ones, and vice versa. Blatently, the two cannot be compared. --Jared 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Jared 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep but fix I agree with some of Jared's points, however, I feel that this list is quite relevant given that it is part of an article entitled "Olympic Games." Therefore, the two games can be compared and seen in the same context because they are both "Olympic Games" with a difference in season and sports. Their medal counts can be added together because they have this in common, and I think some people would find such a tally interesting and I'm also sure most everyone who is interested in the Olympic Games has pondered at least once about what the all-time Olympic medal tallies would be for each participating nation. I feel that we should have separate lists for all-time medal counts for both the Winter and Summer Olympic Games and then also have a list with the two games' medal counts combined. In doing so, we must make sure that when we produce these medal rankings that they are complete, accurate, and that every Games is included so that the numbers aren't grossly miscalculated and that countries are not erroneously left out. --Caponer 00:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. I do agree with you. In a way, I think that the page should be kept, but somehow I dont think it is as important to keep because people will only look at it because they "pondered at least once about [it]." It doesn't contain information that could be used for anything but self knowledge, and even the all of the data is wrong! --Jared 00:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep but fix. Caponer is right: the Games absolutely are comparable. They are run by the same organization (the IOC), and the only reason that we have separate Winter and Summer Olympics now is because of the impracticality of finding one location at which to host all of the possible events for Winter and Summer Sports at the same time. Before the First "Winter" Olympics were held in 1924, there was no such thing as 'Summer' or 'Winter' Olympic Games, they were just the Olympic Games. In fact, some of the very early Olympic Games (i.e., 'Summer' Games, but before they were called that) included events like Figure Skating and Ice Hockey. Should those medals for Figure Skating and Ice Hockey then be counted with the 'Summer' Games because that's where they were awarded, or with the 'Winter' Games because Figure Skating and Ice Hockey are Winter Sports? The point of the Olympics Medal lists is to compare the athletic nature of different Countries, and given that all of the events at every Olympics are athletic in nature, there is a totally valid reason to combine the Medal counts from Winter and Summer Olympic Games. I would also support pages comparing Medal totals for individual Sports, like skiing, track & field, etc. That said, I agree that the Medal totals should be accurate. But it still leaves us with problems like whether or not to include the Intercalated Games of 1906, what to do with medals awarded to teams of people from different countries (allowed at early Olympic Games, but not in the past 100 years), etc.Bojangles04 06:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Using the all-time charts for both the Winter and Summer Olympic Games, I've corrected the combined chart down to #73 which is currently Liechtenstein. I would appreciate if others who would like to see the chart stay could assist me with the final count corrections and assist in double-checking the totals I have corrected (as I am very sleepy and it is possible I could have made a few mistakes). It's beginning to look more and more like a keeper! --Caponer 07:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup There's some problematic historic entries and sports like boxing which give out 2 bronze medals, but these are issues that can be overcome one step at a time. --Madchester 07:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, So I think that we've resolved this issue. I think that we should close this deletion, agreeing to Keep and fix because it is obviously wrong information. (I would do it, but I'm not an admin.) If someone from this discussion would do it (or could find someone to do it) that would be great! Thanks --Jared 17:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep obviously. But create two new pages: Total Summer Olympics medal count and Total Winter Olympics medal count. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: There already are these pages, just remove the total and these are the pages that exist. --Jared 12:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Total Keeper: It is totally harmless and quite informative at the same time. As long as a seperate list of Summer and Winter Games exists, there is no harm. Would like further clarification on what data is incorrect? The Intercalated Games of 1906 are not recognized by the IOC thus should not be included.

Someone was able to correct the problem. The totals here were less than the visual combined total of the winter and summer pages, but someone fixed this. There is no problem now, do this deletion discussion should be ended. --Jared 12:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Could Someone Please Close This Out? Thanks.
--Jared ^[T]/_[C]\^[P:O]/_[@]\^[+] 18:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As Jared has previously stated, this problem has been solved. Further comments and questions should be shared at either Talk:Total Olympics medal count or Wikipedia:Olympic conventions. We ask that an administrator remove this article from this list. --Caponer 02:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VitalFootball

Tagged for speedy deletion as spam, not a speedy crtierion, but a valid comment on the article as written. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Not really notable..Alexa rates them 23,744.Soothing R 22:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete: appears to be just a list of clubs company has website about. I was original speedy nom, but agree with above that it probably doesn't fall into speedy criteria. However, once the list of clubs they mention is removed, all that's left is one line and a link to the main website. MartinRe 22:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per alexa rank. Kappa 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete - the advertising tone, list of football club names and lack of meaningful content shows intent of creator was spam. Alexa rank in the 20,000s affirms non-notability. Qwghlm 00:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Kappa --Ruby 00:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep As above. No doubt it will soon be expanded - give them a week, for example. Gretnagod 03:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tirpok Cleaners

Non-notable business, page reads like an ad. -SCEhard T 22:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet WP:CORP. —ERcheck @ 22:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all above. If this stays, then I'm making an article about my local dry cleaning chain, which has a lot more than eight locations, so it HAS to be more notable! --Kinu ^t/_c 23:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify, I actually wouldn't do that... that would violate WP:POINT, now wouldn't it? :P --Kinu ^t/_c 23:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The article is indentical to that discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ineffablism. -Splash^talk 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ineffabilism

Neologism/original research/advertisement. Ineffablism currently on AfD(1); article's author made this page, spelled differently, when it became clear that consensus was trending towards Delete. Of the 4 hyperlink "references" topping this page, the first links to article author Paluga's own webpage, describing his personal invention of "ineffabilism;" the other 3 link to descriptions of ineffability in religion, with no mention of the neologistic term. --ikkyu2 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete as original research. See Ineffablism afd for creator's comments. —ERcheck @ 23:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons given by the many contributors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ineffablism. AndyJones 09:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cetranlien

Delete. Non-notable garage band. Original creator blanked the page after I added the Prod tag, so we'll have to delete it this way. Xyzzyplugh 22:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -Satori ^(talk) 00:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Spare the prod, spoil the child. ikkyu2 (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 15:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 blank page formerly article abut band with no assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 23:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racneise

Delete. Non-notable garage band. Original creator blanked the page after I added the Prod tag, so we'll have to delete it this way. Xyzzyplugh 22:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete non-notable Yellowmellow45 22:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. The article is currently blanked by its creator, so I think WP:CSD A1 or A3 applies (no content). Also, reviewing previous copies of the article in its history, no claim to notability has been made in any version, so it also qualifies under A7 unremarkable band. Sliggy 23:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mailer Diablo 00:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Schwartz (journalist)

While on a notable subject, this page has proven unmaintainable, attracting many edits by detractors in more or less open attempts to smear the subject, and resulting in a libel claim (and needed a libel claim to clean up).

Unless and until someone turns up who is willing to take responsibility for this page, wikipedia is better off without it. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I second deleting this article. As Gertrude Stein said, "There's no there, there." And frankly, this person isn't worthy of an encyclopedia article. GriotGriot

Strong Keep Notable, gets an entry. Period. Requiring a page to have a 'babysitter' just to exist is absolute bollocks. If it's that upsetting to the regular contributors, get an admin involved, agree on a version and protect, or similer. But 'controversial' is not a criterion for deletion. -AKMask 00:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- There's been no shortage of admin's involved: Jimbo, Ambi, Splash. Noone wants to take responsibility for it, though. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 02:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

These things are not for one person to take control of. It's a community effort. Find an admin willing to help and beat an article out. Compromise, work. Thats what it took with some of the articles I've worked on. We all have that tough one. -AKMask 02:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I find Schwartz interesting, but I don't care enough to get involved again. It's not my tough one. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 03:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep. The libel claim result was to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and to say that the article is on a "notable subject" (nom's words) and yet call for it to be deleted is, frankly, ludicrous. And Griot, inconvenience isn't a grounds for deletion; officially, de facto, or even reasonably. --Calton | Talk 01:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)'

- Delete Inconvenience might be grounds in this case. Have you looked through the Talk archives? This article is a tangle of thorns. No admin would take it on. The extremely hostile subject himself has visited Wiki and threatened a libel suit. Will one of you take it on? The article is doomed to remain a stub. Unless you can find a Hercules admin to take it on, it's going to have to go or remian still born. Griot 02:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Griot

Griot, I urge you to read our Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and have a look for yourself. There are no 'case-by-case' issues. There is a listing there of things that do not require deletion, such as inaccuracy, and things that do require it. Inconveniance is not listed anywhere near that list. I urge you to read the relevent policies and guidelines first. And if he's accusing us of libel, and we see that we are guilty of that behavior, then change it. If he just wants a nice, positive article with no negatives, he can go jump in a lake. Libel is much tougher to prove then most people think. Reporting on someones opinions is not grounds. See Daniel Brandt. -AKMask 02:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Unmaintainability is not listed as an official ground for deletion, but is a widely made and respected ground for deletion on *fD and DRV. That's the basis for my nom. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 03:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Unmaintainability", when it's brought up, always has to do with overly large size and scope. And "unmaintainability" is not a synonym for "inconvenient", attempts to elide the two notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 11:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A page is unmaintainable whenever the work needed to keep the page in order overwhelms the forces at hand. There are a number of reasons that may be the case: here it's because there is noone willing to put in the work necessary to grasp the subject well enough to recognise and combat the repeated efforts to distort and smear the article that it will receive. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 15:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep he has books, articles, and an organization --Ruby 02:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Are either of the strong keeps willing to help put the page in order? --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not be, I dont get involved with political articles. I focus on Scientology, Tropical Cyclones, and some vandal control. A smattering of others, but nothing media/political related. -AKMask 02:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You might just as well ask whether we're left-handed or vegetarian for all the relevance that question has to the actual issue at hand. --Calton | Talk 11:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant: if someone competent were to volunteer

Keep. Check Wikipedia:Deletion policy for what can get deleted, and why. This article doesn't qualify. That means that it can't be deleted; deletion policy is policy. In particular, difficulty in maintaining an article's verifiability or NPOV is not grounds for deletion. Rather, it is grounds for improving the article via consensus editing. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Also, bear in mind that Jimbo's last action with regard to this page was to deprotect it and encourage that future contributions be sourced. That suggests to me that he didn't want it deleted; after all, if he had judged it best that the article be deleted, it was certainly in his power to do so. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  - I wish he hadn't deleted the history, beacuse now no one can go back and see if any of it was salvagable. Yes, I'm sure it might be difficult, but like the kid digging through a huge pile of horseshit because there must be a pony in there somewhere, I'm optimistic. --Calton | Talk 11:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep he's notable, and we're stuck with it. Adrian Lamo ·· 05:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Three things:

1. The page is unmaintainable for no other reason than the fact that (i) there are a number of people who want to use the article to push POV and defamation, and (ii) nobody wants to do the hard work of understanding the issues around Schwartz so that they can look after the article. Uninformed editors looking out for the page has not worked in the past, it will not work in the future.

2. If someone competent turns up who would be willing to do the work necessary to fill the roile I described, great. Then the case for the AfD would vanish and we could look forward to having a decent article on Schwartz.

3. Jimbo would like us to have a decent article on Schwartz, but he knows about my plans to put forward this AfD and has not objected to it. There's some kudos for anyone willing to look after the article. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 15:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, check Wikipedia:Deletion policy for a concise review of community consensus on grounds for deletion. This article in no way qualifies, and certainly not because of any of the three points above.-ikkyu2 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep — More than sufficiently notable. I tried to add some PoV-neutral content. Feel free to expand. :-) — RJH 18:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Schwartz obviously merits a page here and the article is not too bad as it stands. I would just disallow blogs/minor news organizations as a source for links or references (perhaps eliminating the external links section completely). It's on my watchlist and I'm sure after this AfD many editors will be watching the page. -- JJay 18:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lenny Dee

Delete non-notable, possible copyright issue, badly written Yellowmellow45 22:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical 23:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

He's a legend in his field, clean it up rather than delete. I agree, clean it up instead. He is an important figure in relation to Techno music especially.

you can't delete lenny dee- he's the man.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marissa Marchant

Article ranges from untrue to unverifiable. Supposedly a musician. Also supposedly "more notorious as an Internet phenomenon than as a musician". Let's put it this way, a mere 932 Google hits, inflated by Wikipedia mirrors and postings on a message board that is itself barely notable at best (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Love Music), does not qualify as an Internet phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination. She shouldn't have an article as an Internet phenomenon, is there any reason she should have one as a musician? The top external link, her "attack" on Norah Jones, does not refer to even so much as a review she wrote, but a sentence she put in the comments section of someone else's review. Many of the links, including anything SF Weekly may have written about her, do not work. --Michael Snow 23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. An Internet phenomenon with less than 1000 Google hits and little verifiable material doesn't meet WP:WEB see [27]. She certainly doesn't meet our music notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity for a nobody who's main claim to fame seems to be that she has made a career out of attacking ~~other~~ (succesful) artists. Note that most of the links cited don't work. Camillus (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete I can't find a single shred of notability. Insulting someone on a BBC webforum doesn't count. Adrian Lamo ·· 05:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete There is no way of verifying the sources anymore, as the subject of the article has decided to change her name and is threatening anyone who uses her "old" name with a lawsuit. See this thread by the Artist formerly known as Marissa Marchant on another discussion board. She's managed to get almost all of the source references to her name and activities off of the web this way, and without these sources, the article becomes unverifiable. Without her salespitch to sell her CDs for $1000 each and the reactions by other artists, there is nothing left to discuss, as her music very clearly fails [the music notability guidelines]. Although I voted to save her article the first time, this time I vote delete. Musikfabrik 10:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete, self-releasing things and trying to sell them for thousands of dollars isn't notable. - Bobet 13:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete Because it's what she wants. Even though the text of the article is quite true. Here's the link to the SF Weekly article, btw - http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-12-21/music/music.html --Lyin Dan
Delete Non-notable to a T. FCYTravis 05:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Pohorence

Fixing AfD nomination only. See my vote further below. --Metropolitan90 02:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

First Vote to delete. This is a vanity page and articles by author do not recieve much attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.69.82.220 (talk • contribs)
Fisher is a small liberal arts college in Upstate New York. This is merely a vanity page. If this undergraduate student recieves a wikipedia page shouldn't the student government president recieve one, or the college president, or the dean of students? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.69.74.12 (talk • contribs)
Shouldn't comments be made on this page? Not on the actual article itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpikeZoft (talk • contribs)
Delete. The subject of the article's only apparent claim to fame is that he writes a humor column for his college newspaper, a grand total of seven columns having appeared in the paper so far. This is not a sufficient claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 02:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn vanity. dbtfz ^talk 05:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 00:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Hunt

I gave this one a prod template, but the author removed oit without comment, so I'm listing here for concensus. Subject is a non-notable webmaster and graphic designer. Google gives very few hits (76 total, less than 25 unique) for "jason hunt" "natural child project". No secondary sources are provided. This individual just is not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia (please note the page creator is User:Janhunt). — orion eight (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per myself. — orion eight (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
What google are you looking at? i got 10,400,000 hits. Keep ILovePlankton 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh? A Google search for just the name of "Jason Hunt" brings up 37,800 as a number. How you got 10 million hits is beyond me... Searching with other related terms brought it down below 100. — TheKMan^talk 23:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
And by 10,400,000 you meant 76, right? :-P — orion eight (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between phrases, names in quotes, and names without quotes. Hope this helps :) Adrian Lamo ·· 05:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Wikipedical 23:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn vanity. dbtfz ^talk 05:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. (Should have been done in the first place instead of bothering with PROD.) Angr/talk 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep This gallery has collaborated with Unicef, is very well-known and esteemed among those who study children's art, and has collected over 1,000 pictures and paintings from 66 countries over a 9-year period, the largest such collection on the Internet. What definition of "noteworthy" does this website not meet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jennie7 (talk • contribs) .

The article we are discussing is not about a website or art gallery. — orion eight (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep True but it wouldn't exist without the 9 years of donated time Jason has given to this project (I've had the good fortune to meet this very dedicated young man). 1000+ children around the world have been given the joy and encouragement of seeing their artwork on the Internet. Where else could we find the future artists of the world than among the children of today? If anyone who has voted "delete" has an unfulfilled childhood dream, please reconsider. James McKenzie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesmck (talk • contribs) .

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] February 16

[edit] Summoning Chess

[edit] Edit conflict

[edit] Exclamation Records

[edit] Corpsel

[edit] Nazism in relation to other concepts (disambiguation)

[edit] Muttar Masti

[edit] Chris Mojekwu

[edit] Davis Day

[edit] 4chan

[edit] Common phrases based on stereotypes

[edit] Sofa painting

[edit] Liam Herringshaw

[edit] Dynamix club

[edit] List of Amstrad CPC games

[edit] List of lesbian porn stars

[edit] Acellus

[edit] Carparking_Act_(1870)

[edit] Amerime

[edit] Brian Andrew Cox

[edit] Hot Ashes

[edit] Ewell Grove Infant and Nursery School

[edit] Suggested Speed Limits

[edit] Radio nickos

[edit] Astasia abasia

[edit] Female nude wrestling

[edit] Ivan Sidorenko

[edit] Psiphon

[edit] Elder Goth

[edit] Poking the brown starfish

[edit] John Bennett Perry

[edit] Theoretical foundation of polymorphism

[edit] Golds

[edit] Dodecahedronism

[edit] Walter Paddington

[edit] Amazing Racist

[edit] Jeremy Rosenfeld

[edit] Caria Lopez

[edit] Torrey Paquette

[edit] Camp ground

[edit] Advanced mallet techniques

[edit] Cheaptobuyonline

[edit] 1healuvadeal

[edit] Goldstein & Associates, PC

[edit] Lawlessness associated with Hurricane Katrina

[edit] European Honey Buzzard - Pernis apivorus

[edit] Campaign for American Leadership in the Middle East

[edit] That's So Raven Movie

[edit] Romantica

[edit] Smart cinema

[edit] Carrillo Dining Commons

[edit] CapaSystems

[edit] Chenfei Lu

[edit] List of marijuana slang terms

[edit] The Brent

[edit] Ken holmes

[edit] Wilhelm Otto Kühne

[edit] Fastest Straitjacket Escape

[edit] Troop 11

[edit] Coincidences and synchronicities related to September 11, 2001 attacks

[edit] Hamtaro: The Comic Series

[edit] Michael Angus

[edit] Goliza

[edit] Index paper

[edit] Color Greetings

[edit] nice class

[edit] Karmein Chan

[edit] Steven Greenwood

[edit] Smedskjaer's law

[edit] Hunter Macdonald

[edit] Harry Potter: Book Seven (film)

[edit] NU NRG

[edit] Gloucestered

[edit] ignore

[edit] College Prowler

[edit] Three Component Meal

[edit] Mickey's Bitch