Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 23

< January 22	January 24 >

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

The result of the debate was delete. It appears that the keep voters may have had a different, more notable 411 band in mind, and this one does not meet WP standards of notability. —Cleared as filed. 02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 411 (band)

Don't see anything that meets notability under WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 20:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. 411 is a very popular band in the United States, and should be of sufficient importance to have an article. -Rory096 20:40, 23 January 2006 I thought this was 311, my mistake. Rory096 01:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. The band 411 is notable and popular. --Lockley 21:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep The band does have an allmusic reference, just not an extensive one. (aeropagitica) 21:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
~~Weak Delete~~. Weak Delete and Redirect to The 411. If they were notable, I would think that they would show up on more than just a few Wikipedia mirrors.[1] — TheKMan^talk 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

(Not to be confused with 311 (band)) — TheKMan^talk 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn. incog 01:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep because it got an article/interview from the BBC [2], which meets the needs of WP:MUSIC. It's the first google hit on 411 band, so this article should be kept and rewritten to reflect the notable British band. I didn't see the disambig on the page when I looked and rewrote this entry. Redirect to The 411. --badlydrawnjeff 14:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep Redirect per badlydrawnjeffYoungamerican 17:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
~~Just a note that the 411 in the current article is not the same 411 Badlydrawnjeff was speaking about. — TheKMan^talk 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)~~
Redirect to The 411. I suspect that the keep voters may have had the more notable band in mind. Chick Bowen 02:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that The 411 is the same as the band we're discussing, as The 411 is made up of women and is British, while the 411 in this article is male and from California. -Rory096 05:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. WP:MUSIC guideline is two albums; they had one. Unless they had an international tour, major venues, heavy rotation, awards, etc. But no sign of that in the article or in a quick Google lookup. Unless Dan O'Mahony is notable. But he's redlinked. And he first comes up at the fourteenth spot on Google, behind a Dan O'Mahony who is a library staffer at Brown University, and several other Dan O'Mahonys. Do NOT make it a redirect, there are already articles 411 and 411 (disambiguation). Herostratus 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

~~The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nn-band. Mushroom 08:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)~~

[edit] A War of the Roses

~~Non-notable band Avi 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)~~

Speedy delete per A7 - bandity article. – Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete As per nom Avi 00:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn band. Ruby 00:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete NN-Band --Lightdarkness 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7 Blnguyen 01:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
delete kjetil_r 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete HasNoClue 03:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn band. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete as non-notable band, no claim to notability. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:50Z~~

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Urban exploration. -- Jonel | Speak 01:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)~~

[edit] Abandoned hotel

~~This is WP:NOR original research (and maybe WP:NFT) so Delete.Obina 22:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)~~

Delete for reasons given Vegaswikian 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Urban exploration. While this articles contents right now are uncited and there's no point to merging really, it seems like a useful redirect. --W.marsh 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per W.marsh --Muchness 23:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Urban exploration per W.marsh, that's the ticket. --Lockley 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Urban exploration. incog 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete No apparent relevance to anything real-world. D e nni ☯ 02:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect/merge as per incog. This is not to be construed as a keep vote. Stifle 11:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect, ~~merge only the first sentence.~~ If abandoned hotels are becoming scarcer, it is because of the general trend toward revitalizations of downtowns; eminent domain laws have not changed (other than the recent SCOTUS ruling, which would not affect abandoned properties anyway). Chick Bowen 02:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment The first sentence is unsourced opinion / original research like the rest of the article.Obina 00:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I guess I only meant the first clause of the first sentence, but in any case, Obina is right. Chick Bowen 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 11:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Bello

un-notability Melaen 16:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, then, as nn-bio. You don't need to use AfD for that. Stifle 16:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Subject was portrayed by a fairly major actor (Vincent Pastore) in The Hurricane, an Oscar-nominated biopic of Rubin Carter. Needs cleanup, but might meet criteria for notability. -Colin Kimbrell 16:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 13:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep as per Colin. Needs editing, but does assert notability. Robin Johnson 14:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Important figure in notorious criminal case, mentioned in Dylan song, etc. Clearly much more notable than a woman who "married" a dolphin, a college dorm stripper, and Kadee Strickland (to name only a few whose notability has been strongly. if not always successfully, argued.) Monicasdude 15:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to the Hurricane Carter page, since this is his only claim to fame. --Lockley 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge. Anybody mentioned in a Bob Dylan song isn't an nn-bio. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 02:10, Jan. 29, 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as repost (already userfied). Mushroom 15:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alireza Rahimi Boroujerdi

This was deleted before here. However, with so few votes I didn't find that I could delete this again despite it being repeatedly recreated. I believe it should be deleted because it is by no means notable and then deleted page should be added. gren グレン ^? 10:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note: this content is also substantially reproduced at the User page of the creator, Rahimiboroujerdi.

Comment, it would look like a keep based on the 17 books published part, if someone can verify that. The only mentions about that I could find were on his personal website. There are only 22 hits in google for "Rahimi Boroujerdi", 4 for the arabic version of the name. (and don't vote for userfy, it's already on the creator's userpage) - Bobet 12:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
weak keep some references, some notable third world people are likely to fail the google test. All the books he published were in Iran as said on his site [3], and probably wouldnt turn up on google if they werent distributed in the west -- Astrokey44|talk 15:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, did you look at all the references? All but one are from his personal websites, and the last one (from the university he works at) doesn't mention him doing anything notable. Essentially, it's one person saying he's done things (the page was started by User:Rahimiboroujerdi), using himself as a reference. - Bobet 19:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep His departmental website certifies his books and publications [4]. Dlyons493 Talk 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Dlyons493. - Bobet 21:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as {{db-repost}}, then add {{deletedpage}}. No third-party references, i.e. references not controlled by Mr. Boroujerdi or his employer. Stifle 12:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
~~Userfy~~ No, not userfy (which would be my normal solution), speedy delete as repost and WP:AUTO. I checked his talk page and nobody had bothered to tell him why what he was doing was wrong, not even using the standard {{welcome}}. So, yes this should be speedied as a repost, but really, folks, we need to be a bit more careful not to bite even in obvious cases of autobiography. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AlterVistas

Vanity article about a non-notable website (Alexa rank 300,000). Created by two students over the summer of 2000. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 15:59Z

Delete for failure to meet WP:WEB. Eddie.willers 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:WEB. Stifle 12:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A•M Valve Company, LLC

NN irrigation business, advertising MNewnham 15:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete — Advert. Kareeser|^Talk! 16:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advert. Stifle 12:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Populist Renaissance

Non-notable "political party" "formed" last year. The few Google hits include its own website, Wikipedia mirrors, and message board comments signed by the "APR". —Sesel 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as irrelevant political party. KrazyCaley 09:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless and until they field candidates or otherwise become notable. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-band, Mushroom 13:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angriff

Portugese thrash metal band, probably speediable, claims 2001 album, 1 Ghit in portugese, 10 in all languages, album not available for retail sale, looking for delete concensus MNewnham 15:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as {{nn-band}} (tagged) Stifle 12:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 01:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angry White Male

Delete - The information here is not verifiable. There're some 61,300 hits for "Angry White Male" on Google, but there doesn't seem to be a consistent definition throughout. In the best case, the article is original research, in which it should still be deleted. Aucaman^Talk 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Keep the article (per Chick Bowen below). The provided source seems good enough. Aucaman^Talk 21:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete perhaps the author was thinking of Stupid White Men? Unless good sources emerge for this concept, this article seems like original research. --W.marsh 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment - the basis for this article was the content of AWM, which should have been a TLA disambig page. I created Angry White Male for this reason. If the concept of the angry white male has fallen away, I suppose that is a good thing, but I doubt that it is so. -Acjelen 02:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, for a start. Stifle 11:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. The so-called Angry White Male is one of the personifications of groups of American voters, just like the Soccer Mom and the NASCAR dad. The Angry White Male supposedly was a major factor in the 1994 congressional elections. -- Mwalcoff 01:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You cannot just write your personal opinions or analysis into Wikipedia. It would original research. Aucaman^Talk 18:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Neither I nor the creator of the article invented the concept of the "Angry white male." It was used in a lot of media in the mid-90s. See, for example, the June 4, 1995 New York Times article "Affirmative Action: The Race to Win Over The Angry White Male." -- Mwalcoff 22:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You have to be able to provide sources; otherwise it's original research. I subject of the article seems overly broad. I have no problem keeping the article if it's properly sourced and narrowed down. Aucaman^Talk 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*Delete, original research, unverifiable. Chick Bowen 02:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Never mind, see below.

Keep, at least one major newsmagazine used a variation of this to describe the 1994 Congressional situation, and it seems to be a very common search term (see also "Angry white men", which gets even more hits on Google). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand per mwalcoff. Calwatch 04:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Change vote to keep and move to Angry white male. I found a citation, which I've added. Chick Bowen 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn neologism. Grue 14:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand - appears to tie in with men's rights and fathers' rights movement. -- Paul foord 11:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep: interesting--Hraefen 00:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 17:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AN/SPN-46 aircraft control radar

Meaningless article devoid of context. Has been on cleanup since June 2005 with no action. Incapable of merging in present form so delete. Eddie.willers 17:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge with United States Navy. D e nni ☯ 01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep as expandable. I don't see a good place to merge. Aircraft carrier would be better than US Navy, but still poor. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:03Z
Keep perfectly valid stub. There are ten or a hundred thousand other stubs with as much information. If we merged every article on a US Navy ship, weapon, aircraft, radar, uniform, base, rank, tradition, admiral into the article on the US Navy, it'd be far too long and disarrayed to be of any use. Fg2 08:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Quarl. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Quarl & Fg2 -- JLaTondre 23:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable. incog 05:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep and merge --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AppIQ

Should Stay - User:Benjwong This is history now that the company no longer exist.
Advertising - NN Avi 02:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC) * Delete per nom. Avi 02:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge into HP per Crunch Avi 03:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Redacted buissiness talk, should be standalone or merge-legit now. 68.39.174.238 02:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge into HP which acquired this company last fall. Crunch 02:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Crunch. Ruby 03:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Im not sure it should be merged. Just because another company bought it doesnt mean the history of the company has anything to do with the new owner. -- Astrokey44|talk 04:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Slight merge to HP. I agree it shouldn't overshadow the rest of HP, but the info about products can all be rewritten as HP products and hafl of the article dropped (half the article is adcopy anyway). The company is only notable for its acquisition by HP (it was a privately-held company that existed for only 4 years). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:20Z
Slight merge What Quarl said. Robin Johnson 11:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per crunch. Mushin ^talk 14:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep User:Benjwong This is not a major merger but an acquisition. However the product will remain, so it resembles many of the more commonly acquired companies from the past like Rational, Veritas etc. I do not know if there is a wikipedia requirement to only merge public companies with a stock ticker. To keep it short, most small companies that get bought out nowadays are private.
Keep - Ø tVaughn05 ^talk_contribs 17:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom 15:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art Digerati

Non-notable and un-encyclopedic. It should have been speedied but the creator removed the tag. Mushroom 03:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Mushroom 03:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Opinion followed by links. Crunch 03:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete not sure what the article could even become if it were written more appropriately, as it seems the subject matter is lacking. Peyna 03:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Crunch. Ruby 03:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 05:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable (no obvious Google hits), original research. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:04Z
Speedy delete as non-notable. Robin Johnson 11:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as above. —This user has left wikipedia 12:28 2006-01-23
Speedy delete google says "most definitely not". Mushin ^talk 14:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur oakeshott

Looks like another random World War II solduer Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unverifiable. No Google hits for 'Arthur Oakeshott' or variations in spelling. No Incywincy hits either. Eddie.willers 05:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I would like to find out if there are any notable references on him, could be one of the first embeded reporters. BTW he served in WWI, and was a reporter in WWII. Mike _{(T C)} 06:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:45Z
Delete as vanity - Speedy? —This user has left wikipedia 12:41 2006-01-23
Delete vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. The British Army 'Queen's Regiment' was formed in 1966! Prior to that, groups bearing the word 'Queen' as part of their title were not formally known as 'Queen's Regiment'. Many of those groups fought at the Somme so which one was Oakeshott a member of, hmmm? Eddie.willers 16:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - bad joke. Latinus 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep It I know the Dates and facts to be true Bold textKeepBold textthe dates are proven in census and the facts are legitimate—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.212.219 (talk • contribs) .

Delete. Unverifiable. Without cited sources, there is no proof this person exists. — TheKMan^talk 23:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There's nothing I can find to verify this guy's existance. Jtmichcock 00:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Avril Lavigne. -- Jonel | Speak 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awards and Nominations earned by Avril Lavigne

Redundant information from the Avril Lavigne article, and she hasn't been out long enough nor is she celebrated enough (like Ray Charles or someone) to require a whole article for this. Esprit15d 14:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Avril Lavigne. Crunch 15:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Crunch Hirudo 16:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Avril Lavigne. It's not like this is going to take a whole lot of space. D e nni ☯ 01:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Avril Lavigne. Essexmutant 12:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. Stifle 12:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Delete --Dogbreathcanada 07:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7 non-notable group of people (club). DES ^(talk) 20:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome Club

Childish silliness. A club of two people. EBond 17:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 18:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not even close. Phantasmo 18:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not NPOV either. Arviragus 18:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 10:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azmaria_no_uta

Appears to be lyrics, not suitable for wikipedia AnAn 09:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete per nom. Robin Johnson 11:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Seems pointless. PJM 12:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Snurks ^{T C} 19:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 03:36Z

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 20:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baba dzjo, Zjvet

Characters from a not-yet-written book MNewnham 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as crystal-ballism. Ifnord 18:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not sure how you know it's a not-yet-written book. Seems like it could be almost anything (other than worth keeping) Dlyons493 Talk 21:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as makeup. Latinus 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. a fictional character from James T.'s fictional mystery that is in the process of being written. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:26Z
- It does say that doesn't it! Oh well, my vote was right anyway :-) Dlyons493 Talk 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. incog 18:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nomination --T-rex 23:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 02:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basel Sabbagh

Seems non-notable and biographical. No google hits for full name and only 13 for article name. Thus my vote is delete. Deskana (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is actually a biography of sorts... is this dissallowed? --And1Viper 00:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- If the person isn't notable then yes it is disallowed. See Wikipedia:Notability for more information. -- Francs 2000 00:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yes it is, my dear And1Viper, since there is no assertion of notability in your biography... Speedy delete per A7 - nn bio. Sorry. – Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speed Delete - Article is a hoax, and a clear dipiction of vanity. Not only is this non-notable, it is a hoax, no person by the name of Basel Sabbagh exists. Abhishekpradhan
- Why do you think he doesn't exist? User:And1Viper (Basel Sabbagh) seems a genuine user, a real person, even if completely non-notable. 131.111.8.104 01:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. Dbtfz 00:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC) This is what user pages are for. Dbtfz 00:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - nn student. Ruby 00:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as above.Blnguyen 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom. Avi 02:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as nominator withdraws nomination. Stifle 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Gavere

No context (when? what war?), and google is basically no help (of the few hits for "Battle of Gavere", most don't even refer to this event). Basically unverifibale, and currently meaningless. -R. fiend 16:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep but add information. Most information about this battle is in Dutch (Google for "slag van gavere"; not many hits but they're nearly all from official town sites from the region where the battle took place) Hirudo 17:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've added place/time and a link to an article in Dutch that can be used to expand the article. Hirudo 17:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Hirudo. Lukas 20:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, now that it's been given the minimum contwxt, and it seems clear it's not a hoax, I'll withdraw my nomination (I'm still surprised at the dearth of googles). I'll leave this here anyway, hoping it will attract more attention this way than a cleanup tag would, because the article still needs work. -R. fiend 20:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep and expand Dlyons493 Talk 21:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bilakis

Non-notable and unverifiable restaurant. Delete OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Non notable restaurant. Obina 23:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Smerge to Metrocity. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:17Z
Delete or slight merge per Quarl. Stifle 12:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boss Hoss

Advertisement Avi 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PJM 21:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Obina 22:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 01:50Z

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by The Epopt - Bobet 23:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bri bri

The page does not have anything meaningful. Rory096 20:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as NN and probable vanity. And I mean vanity. Entry by user BryBry: "Bri Bri is the only person alive capable of this cool shit, yo". --Lockley 20:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, nn-bio and patent nonsense. - Bobet 20:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete A candidate for {{nn-bio}} if ever I saw one. (aeropagitica) 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to British nationality law and Hong Kong. -- Jonel | Speak 01:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British National (Overseas) - extra information

This was nominated by me for deletion previously, as it is a text dump from various sources. It was decided to merge and redirect. Problem is, nothing has been done in a week and, besides that, there's nothing to merge that isn't already in the main article. Alr 16:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect and merge whatever not yet merged. Preserve the edit history. — Instantnood 17:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand the need for preserving the history...there's nothing that's obviously worth keeping, and some of it is possibly copyrighted. Alr 21:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge/redirect anything that's not already there and not copyvio. {{sofixit}} Stifle 12:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Capability Development Document. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capstone requirements document

Delete. This article is hopelessly out of context and of extremely questionable notability in the first place, as it just seems like a piece of bureaucratic paperwork. The article's only link does not work, and efforts to find out exactly what the article's subject IS have all met with frustration. I can see no very convincing reason to keep it. KrazyCaley 08:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep and merge all related stubs such as Capability Development Document into one article. I've fixed the external link. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:58Z
Merged and redirected to Capability Development Document per Quarl's good idea. KrazyCaley 09:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Quarl. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom 05:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chelsea Ownby

Delete as unverifiable and probable vanity. This page was blanked but started by a Tdukes who describes Chelsea as a porn actress and Mr. Dukes as her co-star. 'Chelsea Ownby' comes back with 0 Google hits. Lockley 19:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. --DelftUser 20:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, possible speedy per CSD G7, article blanked by sole author. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable non-notable biography; tagged for speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:51Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 02:57, Jan. 29, 2006

[edit] Colony5

NN - vanity - band Avi 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC) * Delete per nom. Avi 02:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep - Article rewritten and notability somewhat established. I'd prefer more and better referencing, but at this point I no longer favor deletion. Avi 15:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - no assertion of chart position or notable members. Ruby 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Blnguyen 03:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. Seems more notable than regular AFDed bands -- has AMG entry, lots of Google hits. No claim to notability in article though so delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:45Z
Delete google test agrees. —This user has left wikipedia 12:18 2006-01-23
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless someone established notability in the article. BrianSmithson 19:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep now that references have been found and notability established. — BrianSmithson 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. International touring (Russia, Sweden, Mexico, Czech Republic) plus appearances on NBC Giga. Also nominated for Scandinavian Alternative Music Award for Best Newcomer. Very notable, will edit the article momentarily to reflect these findings. --badlydrawnjeff 14:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If notability is described, verified, and referenced, than the article should stay, as any other wikipedia article. Avi 15:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done a rewrite to reflect some of these findings. --badlydrawnjeff 15:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If you add a reference to reflect the edits you just made, I will vote to keep. — BrianSmithson 15:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Keep in mind that many of the references are in languages that I can't read, so I tried my best to go with English-language ones. Perhaps someone who's familiar w/Eastern Euro/Russian languages can expand further. --badlydrawnjeff 15:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn band --timecop 01:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of content management systems

(1) It doesn't really provide much in the way of useful information. (2) Short of duplicating the information on cmsmatrix et al., it is mostly original research. Most of the facts/features are only mentionened here, not on the detail pages. There are no sources to back those claims. (3) It's not the kind of thing you'd expect to find in an encyclopaedia. (4) The article is a spam magnet; I've watched this page a couple of days and seen a pattern: Commercial CMSs are entered here -- with all features claimed to be supported and linked to detail articles which read like {{advert}}s. --Silvestre Zabala 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Part original research, part advertising. Crunch 18:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. PJM 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The information here that's encyclopedic is available in List of content management systems, and the remainder is feature comparison which is impossible to define properly (i.e., which features should be compared, and how should those features be defined). Ubernostrum 20:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per reasons above. Sue Anne 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Andy 02:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ubernostrum. It also appears to be incomplete since there's no reference to Interwoven's solutions. Essexmutant 12:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above.Argon128 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge with List of content management systems, original research move to wikisource. --Moravek 19:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
DO NOT Delete - This type of resource is very valuable to newbies trying to figure out the complex and baffling CMS landscape of products.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conrad Kresge

Delete for failure to establish notability wrt WP:BIO. Eddie.willers 17:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Its style scrapes WP:NOR and its subject does not meet WP:BIO, as far as I can tell. PJM 17:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable biography. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:04Z
Delete per Quarl. Probable copyvio. Stifle 12:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howch e ng {chat} 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossingpoint

advert for a non-notable band ➥the Epopt 20:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Although they do have a profile on Allmusic.com, it's only of the one album recorded independently. This article was written with a clear bias, and it certainly is an advertisement. No claim of notability is made, and I can't tell how to determine it based on South African music charts or underground scenes. Until claims of notability are made, they're on the delete side for me. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per CSD A7 - nn-band, tagged as such. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio of [5]. I was going to revert to an older version but then it turned out that's a copyvio too, of [6]. howch e ng {chat} 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 07:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cult of the Dragon

non-notable, non-encyclopedic undeaddragoncruft ➥the Epopt 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Thank God I know nothing about Dungeons and Dragons, but perhaps someone knowledgeable in the subject can help enlighten us? JHMM13 (T | C) 20:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Looks accurate to me. The article should mention that this is part of the Forgotten Realms setting, though. The cult features in at least one sourcebook, and several Dragon articles. User:Ben Standeven as 128.252.121.2 22:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yup. The FR 2nd ed sourcebook is downloadable now, too. The thing is definitely mentioned in 3ed Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting too unless I'm mistaken - not sure to what extent in the other 3ed sources... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup, add sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I started cleaning up the text and noted that the text is actually a copyvio, almost exact copy of what's found in Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (page 272). On a cursory check the only difference seems to be the fact that "In the Dungeons & Dragons fictional universe" has been added to the beginning. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete copyvio. Chick Bowen 02:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. Mushroom 13:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Meigh

Delete - Non notable person - Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off the ground - Hiberniantears 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Starting a small youth theatre is not a claim of notability. -R. fiend 16:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 12:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI and DELETE Babajobu 08:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Sim Tangent

Incoherent rant. Pure original reserach. Hurricane111 19:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom as personal essay-style rant with no encyclopedic value. --Lockley 20:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT a soapbox -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Neutral I agree with the statements above in general about the quality of the article, but... this isn't technically original research. Dave Sim, who is a major figure in the comics world, wrote this article a number of years ago, published it in his comic book series Cerebus and released it to the public domain. As you can imagine, it caused a stir, mostly of the "Dave Sim needs to be put back on his meds. Stat!" variety. So the question is: what should Wikipedia do with a piece like this written by a notable figure? It's of historical interest, if only for an example "there but for the grace of god go I." -- Richfife 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - if anything, it should be transwikied to wikisource and then deleted, though I'm not sure if the editors at wikisource would want this. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikisource. Dave Sim is a notable figure, but not notable enough to have an essay posted as a Wikipedia article. If someone wants to take a couple (and only a couple) of quotes from this and add them to the Dave Sim article, I have no problem with that. Otherwise let Wikisource decide how to handle this. 23skidoo 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikisource. howch e ng {chat} 00:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment - added intro if that makes a difference. I understand this may not fit Wiki's definition of an encyclopedic entry, but the claim that this is "pure original research" is demonstrably false. All you have to do is read the article. If deleted, I'll just take a couple (and only a couple!) of quotes and provide it as an addendum to the Sim page. Antihostile 16:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Lucky 6.9 —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:28Z

[edit] David p wong

Pianist who played some concerts. Nothing in the article indicates Wikipedia-level notability. Dbtfz 03:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC) A previous article with the same subject was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wong. Dbtfz 03:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete nn performer. Ruby 03:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 03:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary and DELETE Babajobu 08:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daysailing

Delete? Or keep with Wiktionary {wi} template up? Dangherous 23:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ with {{wi}}. No real reason to delete. However, I didn't see an entry in Wiktionary. Did this get transwikied properly? howch e ng {chat} 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Read the Wikipedia:Transwiki log. This article has not been transwikified at all. Uncle G 13:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Then revert back to the version in the history that had the definition and mark for transwiki. howch e ng {chat} 16:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The link to Wiktionary doesn't work. Stifle 11:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's because Dangherous changed the content to a {{wi}} without looking to see if it was in Wiktionary. Revert, transwiki, delete. —Cryptic (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howch e ng {chat} 00:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond Heart and Training Institute

This article seems to be nothing but an advert for the DHAT Institute. It contains no information about what the DHAT is, what is provides or what its programs are. As it stands I nominate it for deletion. Gwernol 23:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a self-admitted copyvio. howch e ng {chat} 00:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital pest

delete neologism. Melaen 20:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom.Obina 20:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn (at the most wiktionary) Avi 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 03:20Z
Delete per nom. incog 06:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Direct realism. Owen× ☎ 17:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct perception

Say what, Bub? This is contextless jibberjabber that needs to be erased before starting over. Eddie.willers 05:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - This appears to be more of an attempt at a definition than an encyclopedic article. Its a rather bad attempt at a definition, as well. - Nortonew 05:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Direct realism -- the concept which this stub seems, in its pathetic way, to be trying to articulate. Dbtfz 05:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Dbtfz. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:43Z
Redirect per Dbtfz. Deep, man. Deep. KrazyCaley 09:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

8Redirect per Dbtfz. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete and I quote from the entry "My pants are on fire." Seems to be nonsense added to a definition. The initial comment can be moved per Dbtfz, it would need some expansion though.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 11:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dissipated Eight

Delete Is this group really famous enough to warrant a page on wikipedia? Flexon1985 07:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see, none of their CDs are available on Amazon, but Google does get 573 hits and "Male Collegiate Album of the Year" satisfies WP:MUSIC as far as I'm concerned. And it's not a bad article, too! I say keep. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. One of those continuous collegiate music groups that has some borderline notability.
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 11:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep 15 years of discography is hard to come buy, i'm sure one of their fans will put more info. —This user has left wikipedia 12:53 2006-01-23
Delete I've been a big fan of this group's work ever since the release of their 1990 LP Super 8!, their most accomplished album. Its commercial sounds with deep pop grooves were appealing in a narrower way than their great, great live concerts, but still deeply satisfying. I think their rendition of "I Do" was the most moving a capella song of the 1990s about monogamy and committment. As far as I'm concerned it was the greatest achievement in pop music to date. But lately their work has become too artsy, too intellectual. Students at Middlebury College, which I still attend, have lost interest in this group, which has lost touch with its base. The back-to-back departures of Kevin Manfredi and Erik Carleton in 2000 and 2001 really destroyed the group's moral. They want to fit in, but they can't. Their site should be deleted unless they can facilitate a return to the traditional moral values that they so strongly held on to for their first 40 years.—Slackerman 2006-01-25 12:06Z

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doodool River (with redirect at Doodool river)

A river with no references that probably didn't exist. There is just one google hit for doodool River (hich is basically what this article says). What it doesn't say is that that hit was for here, and that page has since changed the river name to Nerang River. So, we have an article saying in effect "The Doodool River has never existed". Neither should this article. Grutness...wha? 07:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete {{hoax}} article, no references or citations of material. (aeropagitica) 07:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable/hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:35Z
Delete per Quarl. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. BrianSmithson 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge with List of Nonexistant Rivers ;) Delete - Guettarda 13:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 16:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 06:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dos Passos Counterpoint

Single-sentence assertion about literary technique. Original research, POV, unencyclopedic triviality that belongs, if at all, in the John Dos Passos article. MCB 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy as patent nonsense. NatusRoma 05:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drinkn From a Fire Hose

A blog with no alexa rank and no other claim of notability. - Bobet 13:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Robin Johnson 14:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd have just redirected it to Firehose, which mentions the "drink from a fire hose" meme, but might as well delete since it's here already. A blog with 24 google hits, including them, us, and a couple of our mirrors. —Cryptic (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN. BrianSmithson 20:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - my blog gets more google hits than this, and I'm not about to make an article about it. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as patent non-notable weblog. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 03:24Z
Delete wirtes about things that are blog-worthy?. --T-rex 23:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edna Jean Garner

Non notable minister, not sure if it's a nn-bio so placing it here Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe she is a notable minister in New Zealand, where she has published books on teaching for the deaf, and her Christian mission of working with the deaf.wikipedia. User:Embode
Keep with indication for cleanup and verification if she is indeed notable (and while they're at it they might indicate how she got married 9 years before she was born). Crunch 05:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Canley 06:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)"
Delete. The article makes no claim to notability. The two external links don't obviously mention her.-gadfium 07:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I was going to vote keep because I thought she was a minister but then I found out that she was only a minister. As that seems to be her biggest claim to notability I don't think this is notable enough. Delete. JIP | Talk 10:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JIP. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no claims to notability. Could have been speedied. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Proquest returns 0 hits.Uucp 16:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN and possible vanity. --Brian1979 15:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ekhelar

Stub about a last name. Nothing suggests notability. Punkmorten 20:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. --DelftUser 20:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No claim of notability for family name. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 22:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable family name. Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 03:03Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elder project

Looks like someone's joke. Perhaps move to BJAODN? KI 15:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

delete No brainer deletion. absolute baloney. Phantasmo 15:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, G3, silly vandalism. Tagged. PJM 15:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eleusinian Mysteries Solved?

Clearly WP:OR, though competent (doesn't seem crackpotty, at least at first sight.) Author could certainly contribute greatly to Eleusinian Mysteries, which already exists, but I don't think a redirect from this rather unencyclopedic title would make much sense. A previous version of the article now submitted has already been published in what seems to be a reputable outlet, so it could very well be used as a reference. Author is newcomer, so please don't bite; I've contacted him on his talk page. Lukas 20:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - WP:NOT a publisher of original thought -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Original research, as proved by the last line: "The first version of this article was published in Rätsch, Christian & Baker, John R. (Eds.): Jahrbuch für Ethnomedizin und Bewußtseinsforschung. Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung, No 3, Berlin 1994". (aeropagitica) 21:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as makeup. Latinus 21:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Either Original Research or Hoax Avi 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 03:21Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 recreation of a deleted article. Mushroom 11:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enue

Hoax; no Google hits. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 20:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facility 9461

Totally non-notable and unencyclopaedic - so delete. Eddie.willers 17:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unverifiable unless a good, verifiable source citation is provided prior to expiration of AfD comment period. Note that to be verifiable, a source needs to be reasonably accessible to a reader with ordinary access to research facilities and willing to apply ordinary diligence. I doubt that such a source is available for the facts in this article but am willing to be proven wrong. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. Lots of Google hits, I believe all to Wikipedia mirrors. This article was created in mid-2005 and has managed to find its way into a lot of places. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Dpbsmith. This article has had a long enough time to be verified. Obina 23:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable and unverifiable (8 unrelated Ghits). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:08Z

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fanfare Games

Non-notable web forum. Delete OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Robin Johnson 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. AvB ÷ talk 13:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sue Anne 20:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable web forum. fanfaregames.com: 1,850,239. 713 registered users. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 03:26Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, confusingly enough. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 02:48, Jan. 29, 2006

[edit] Filmsite.org

Keep - doesn't fit WP:WEB Chris M. 05:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote changed, per Pinktulip. Chris M. 03:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a link directory, and there's little that can be said about this site that is not already in this very small article. Still a nice site, might be useful for referencing movie articles. Tinus 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as notable based on Alexa Traffic Rank for filmsite.org: 13,904 . —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:10Z
Keep Wikipedia, if it cannot provide all of the information directly, should help the user find additional informaiton. It helps Template:Filmsite to be more uniform with the IMDb template. -- Pinktulip 07:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I prefer to see Alexa rating of 10000 or more for website notability; this was the guideline on WP:WEB for a long while before it was removed. Stifle 12:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you take a second look, and this time, look for not just volume, but value and information density. This site has it. I am sure that there are plenty of porno sites that have a rating over 10000. Your logic is that they should have a higher priority to getting an article? -- Pinktulip 01:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Volume and information density would be valid reasons to include this site in a link directory. I would instead suggest the 'endorsed by Roger Ebert' statement as a reason for it to fit the WP:WEB guideline, if there would be references to back it up. Tinus 21:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Roger Ebert comment is present on the homepage of filmsite.org. Tintin Talk 21:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not really a reference, it would prove 'The site owner considers himself endorsed by...'. I added the best reference I could find on Roger Ebert's site (the others state either something about Tim Dirks; not about the site, state 'Dialogue taken from the great site ...' or state nothing about either). Still thin though. Tinus 23:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Pinktulip. Tintin Talk 23:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 14:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Florida Datamation

OK, what do we have? A non-notable company that ceased to exist about 8 years ago. No biographical details on its founder and no detailed info on its product line. On cleanup since June 2005 and nothing added - delete. Eddie.willers 17:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep If they were infact the distributor for QNX in the states then they are notable.Mike _{(T C)}

17:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, being a distributor for someone else's product is not a big deal. Gazpacho 18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom as defunct. Stifle 12:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 11:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former Exarchate of Alexandria

Delete. Unverifiable. All the sources listed are websites run by the group, and a Google search[7] yields no results outside those sites. Its creation by someone connected with it qualifies it as a vanity page. Also suffers notability and POV issues. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 13:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete appears to be nn Mushin ^talk 13:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep - move to Exarchate of Alexandria in America or whatever, and turn this into an article on the history of Alexandrinian presence in America (which seems to be undisputed). But minimize the treatment of the present-day remnants, which seem to be extremely marginal - even their own website is mostly busy defending the view that they exist in the first place! If this can't be done, delete. Lukas 14:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I'd be interested in seeing some of this undisputed history, since it's not even mentioned in any of the standard sources on the history of the Orthodox Church in N.A. (e.g. FitzGerald, Stokoe and Kishkovsky, Surrency). A careful look at their website (via their bishop's alleged apostolic succession) indicates that they rather trace their line to the American Orthodox Catholic Church. —A.S. Damick ^talk ^contribs 14:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forum Instant Messenger

NN Computer Program. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 11:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete completely non-notable. --Oscarthecat 11:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 12:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete every Bulletin Board has a Private Message system, this one is not unique. —This user has left wikipedia 12:56 2006-01-23
Delete per nom. Please remove this forumcruft also from List of instant messaging clients when done. --Perfecto 14:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable php messenger for a non-notable web forum ( 76 registered users). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 16:46Z
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Do not delete - so what? Just because the forum is small and the program is only at its beginning, it doesn't mean it doesn't have a right to be here. Also, this is not the Private Messaging system, it's a separate program. OBrasilo 19:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Only verifiable things have a right to be here, sorry. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words --Perfecto 20:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:32, Jan. 29, 2006

[edit] Foundry9

Advertising/spam. Some of their clients are notable but is this company notable to have an article? According to the person's user name, the page was created by the co-founder of the company and his contributions are just putting his sites on the external links of other articles. J. Nguyen 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable corporation. 79 Google hits, 32 unomitted. An internet advertising company should have no problem advertising on websites outside of Wikipedia. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 01:06Z
Delete per Quarl. Stifle 11:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been an anymouse user of Wikipedia and find it very interesting so only recently have started contributing. Overall, there is very little information about the people that have helped to build the commercial internet. For example, there is no entry for internet advertising agency. These firms create the experiences that direct billions of advertising dollars and create sites used by hundreds of millions of users. As a category, its certainly a non-trivial professional group. Should I move this entry to my personal page and create a stub entry for Interactive Agency or Internet Agency to start capturing information about the class of companies ? --Matthewbernardini 02:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FSQL

Fuzzy Structured Query Language (FSQL) is ~~a hoax~~ not notable. Ezeu 03:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

comment: Seems like it might actually be legit: [8], [9], [10], [11]. I don't know enough to make an informed vote, though. Peyna 03:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Hasn't really moved beyond original research. Dlyons493 Talk 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Change to strong keep if the article lists an important business solution utilizing FSQL. Ruby 03:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep for now. Not convinced it won't be notable (yes, I know, not a crystal ball).--SarekOfVulcan 03:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Searching "Fuzzy Structured Query Language" as a phrase on google returns 17 links ! [12], of which several are Wikipedia articles or mirrors. Add FSQL to the search and you get 6 links [13], of which all but one are wikipedia articles – and this is supposed to be a notable programming related topic? --Ezeu 04:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This articles describes 2003 computer science research (see [14]) -- so it is verifiable and definitely not a hoax. However, it is a far cry from a standardized query language such as SQL. Given that there is one citation for the linked paper, and the fact that there are as many Google scholar hits for "FSQL" about "functional SQL" papers as for "fuzzy SQL" (i.e. one each), this is not notable. Thus, Delete. I wouldn't mind a one-or-two-sentence merge to Fuzzy logic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:14Z

I dont want to be a nuisance, but a merge would be wrong. This thing does not warrant a mention on Wikipedia. Even the javascript I wrote last month is more notable. --Ezeu 14:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as above, unverifiable and/or original research. —This user has left wikipedia 12:27 2006-01-23
Delete per dylons, original research. Mushin ^talk 14:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 14:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-band, Mushroom 11:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funeral Folk

CD-Rs? Tapes? Don't think thsi meets music guidlines. Promotional vanity to boot. -R. fiend 21:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - per nom James084 21:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete db-band. Avi 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per WP:NMG. The article describes a record label and that's not speediable. PJM 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity article (assertion of notability makes it ineligible for speedy)--Hurricane111 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 01:48Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FZClass

non notable PHP control, delete Melaen 20:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It's at sourceforge, let it stay there until it has downloads in the five or six figures. Stifle 12:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:36, Jan. 29, 2006

[edit] Getting Away With Murder: The JonBenet Ramsey Story

Having little context on the article. Adnghiem501 23:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete --Zsinj 00:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as just a link and a POV statement. However if someone expands this into a proper NPOV article on the movie, then change my vote to keep. 23skidoo 00:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete When so much more could be written, there is no excuse for keeping an impoverished article such as this. D e nni ☯ 02:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep and move to correct title Getting Away With Murder: The JonBenet Ramsey Mystery. Notable as a tv movie with an IMDB entry that screened on a national network (note: I've edited the article to remove POV and wikify). --Muchness 02:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. Adnghiem501 02:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- This stub needs expansion, not deletion. - Longhair 09:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- I concur with Longhair... also the article has more than one inbound wikilink -- it would be a disservice to delete it. Mattbrundage 14:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Adnghiem501 & Longhair. Youngamerican 17:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per Muchness & Muchness's expansion. ×Meegs 21:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and move to correct title as listed above High Plains Drifter 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per previous comments.--Esprit15d 20:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom 15:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gfxvoid

Seems like a NN website to me. Orphaned article as well. Kareeser|^Talk! 01:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Forum with Alexa rank 331,849 Ruby 01:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Linkspam Avi 02:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable web forum. 2500 members is not notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:46Z
Delete, non-notable website. JIP | Talk 10:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as non-notable. Robin Johnson 10:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as above. —This user has left wikipedia 12:17 2006-01-23
Delete nn Mushin ^talk 13:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by RHaworth as non-notable bio. - Bobet 11:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gina_Locke

Delete. Vanity, user links to her blog. Colby Peterson 02:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. vanity. Crunch 03:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy. The author wasn't properly introduced to Wikipedia and probably didn't know that this type of article isn't allowed. --ScienceApologist 03:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per SA, nn bio. Ruby 03:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 05:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Userfy non-notable biographical entry, as per WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 07:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable vanity biography; tagged as {{nn-bio}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:15Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Majority

Advertisement Avi 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Avi 02:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete peace organization with no accomplishments. Ruby 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Blnguyen 03:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Not listed on CharityWatch, CharityNavigator, etc. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:28Z
Delete per nom. Robin Johnson 11:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mushin ^talk 13:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 02:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GMA Pinoy TV

Delete, article reads like an advertisement for Cable Service. — KaiserB 02:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Blatant Advertising Avi 02:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep This is a the competitor to The Filipino Channel. If it goes, then TFC has to go. Ruby 03:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct; they both read like ad-copy to me ("Undisputed all-Filipino"?!) Avi 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep. It is most definitely notable.[15][16]--ThreeAnswers 03:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable. If you think its advertising it should be tagged with {{advert}} -- Astrokey44|talk 04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You think that the article as it stands is salvagable? Avi 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It does require significant clean-up as it reads like an advertisement. But I don't see how its notability could be disputed.--ThreeAnswers 06:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adverts can be trimmed by deleting all the words like "forges", " Highly calibrated" and "To establish global exposure" - theres normally a few facts in there somewhere -- Astrokey44|talk 08:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned-up the article and added some links.--ThreeAnswers 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep but needs extensive cleanup. Current version is very ad-like and doesn't assert notability in a convincing way. Robin Johnson 11:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite gotta be cleaned up or deleted, must remove all but one image. —This user has left wikipedia 12:23 2006-01-23
Keep and rewrite. Mushin ^talk 14:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Googolquinqueplex

Apparent neologism number name. Was redirected to Names of large numbers as are googolduplex, googoltriplex, but User:Pilotguy reverted.

Delete. Gazpacho 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete If anything, wiktionary, but not wikipedia Avi 02:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete total hoax. Ruby 02:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Return to redirect - the revert was probably a good-faith mistake in RC patrol. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete don't even need the redirect, but it's probably harmless. I couldn't resist cleaning it up a little. Peyna 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Names of large numbers. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:29Z
Redirect to Names of large numbers and mention in "Googol family" section. ~~Not a hoax, plenty of Google hits~~ I'll assume good faith and believe it's not a hoax, but it doesn't warrant its own article. Robin Johnson
Redirect no article needed but as long as it's mentioned somewhere. —This user has left wikipedia 12:20 2006-01-23
Redirect per quarl. Mushin ^talk 13:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, do not redirect as unverifiable, personal essay, original research, etc. unless solid evidence is presented that the term is in substantial real use. No hits in Google Scholar, No hits in Google Books, are we serious about verifiability or not? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not verifiable. Google search leaves only wiki and wiki mirrors. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 01:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. The article does not actually document any information, but simply inflates to unnecessary importance a particular instance of a sequence the author very likely made up himself. The sequence itself already gets disparaging mention under Names of large numbers#Googol family; an actual article is superfluous. Ryan Reich 20:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
~~Merge with Googolplex~~. Interesting diversion, but unworthy of its own article. --Billpg 12:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Abstain. Just re-read it. It's not that interesting. --Billpg 14:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete; neologism. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete; neologism Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. Not verifiable and a dictdef. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, I will also transwiki it. Babajobu 11:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gyp (slang)

Slang terms have no place in Wikipedia. Shouldn't this be in Wiktionary? Eddie.willers 04:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Actually "gyp" already is in Wiktionary. However, this defintion contains a bit more information on the etymology. Perhaps it should be merged into the Wiktionary entry. - Nortonew 05:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Wiktionary entry already contained the etymology, with the same hyperlink to the same WorldWideWords article, four months before this article was even created. Uncle G 09:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  - This is inaccurate. It contains one sentence on etymology and then the link. It's a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. It's not designed, nor should it be, to deal with cultural/historical subjects like this.--T. Anthony 11:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    - It contains one sentence on etymology and then the link. — And that's the same hyperlink to the same article as here, as I (quite accurately) said. cultural/historical subjects like this. — That's a fallacious argument. There is no cultural/historical subject being dealt with by this article. It's an article about the word gyp, plain and simple. Uncle G 16:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
~~Weak keep~~ the debate about whether or not "gyp" is an ethnic slur is something I heard about before I ever went online.--T. Anthony 07:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Discussions of alternative and disputed etymologies of words belong in the etymology sections of the articles on those words in the dictionary. Wiktionary is not paper. Uncle G 09:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  - I'm switching to just keep. It might not be doing it now, but a history of this word and of its use could have value. I've heard of entire papers on this word. I think there are words and phrases that can merit an article rather than just a dictionary entry. And although Wiktionary is not paper, Wikipedia isn't paper either. Looking at Category:Slang many words that less deserve an article have one. For example Huzzah or Cowabunga. I think this should be given time to become a real article.--T. Anthony 10:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    - A "history of this word" belongs in the dictionary, in the etymology section of the dictionary article about the word. Wiktionary is not paper. Wiktionary has "real articles" too! You are conflating "short" with "dictionary article". That's wrong. The two are not synonymous. Please do not support the waste of time and effort that is the creation of dictionary articles in the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia, and Wiktionary is the dictionary. Please do dictionary work in the project that has the goal of creating a dictionary. Uncle G 11:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      - Don't lecture me, especially as you don't do it very well. A long page on the use, history, and controversy over this word would not belong in a dictionary or wiktionary. I don't want to write that article at 5:25 AM Central Standard Time, but I'm sure I can write it at some point. We have articles on all kinds of words, something you failed to acknowledge or respond to. So tell me why issues concerning this word merit an article less than the other words in Category:Slang. If you can't do that, don't bother lecturing me again.--T. Anthony 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        A long page on the use, history, and controversy over this word would not belong in a dictionary or wiktionary. — Rubbish. Articles on words that discuss their etymologies and their usages are exactly what Wiktionary is for and explicitly wants. Yet again, you are conflating "dictionary article" and "short". Wiktionary is not paper, and welcomes long discussions of etymologies. Furthermore: I've already told you about Category:Slang, its mis-use, and the Wiktionary category where dictionary articles on slang words properly belong, below. Uncle G 16:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        I still think you are being a snot, but I'm no longer as certain this belongs in Wikipedia. In an Encyclopedia perhaps it would, in Wikipedia perhaps not. Whether you like it or not there are cases of issues/history concerning words being of historical enough importance to merit an encyclopedic article. You can whine and pout against that all you want, but it doesn't really change that. Or change that there are numerous such word/articles already. I think this word does merit that, but admittedly just barely. This is a case though of Wiki versus reality. In this case "What Wikipedians can do or find interesting" maybe does make this invalid.--T. Anthony 01:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There's really nothing here beyond a dictionary definition. Durova 08:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki. Merge with the Wiktionary entry. KrazyCaley 09:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing here to make the effort of transwikification worthwhile. Wiktionary gains nothing from this content being transikified. Wiktionary already contained the etymology, with the same hyperlink to the same WorldWideWords article, four months before this article was even created. If you want to expand the Wiktionary article, edit Wiktionary directly. Uncle G 09:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a dictionary article about the word gyp that has been placed in the wrong project. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary already had an article four months before this article was even created. Delete. Uncle G 09:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to wiktionary // OR redirect to Roma People. —This user has left wikipedia 12:43 2006-01-23
Transwiki to wikitonary. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Why shouldn't this be in Wikipedia? It's in Category:Slang, which has a hundred eighty other entries, as well as several subcategories. And it doesn't read like a dictionary article. Keep. Fg2 07:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary is our official policy. Although greatly mis-used, that category is supposed to be for encyclopaedia articles about slang (such as Boston slang, London slang, and so forth), not for dictionary articles about slang words. (This article does read like a dictionary article. Read some dictionary articles. In particular, read gyp, which is a dictionary article that contains everything that this article does.) The category for dictionary articles about slang words is Category:Slang on Wiktionary. Uncle G 11:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Misleading. It's one sentence and then a link. Wiktionary is a dictionary. It's not set up to deal with issues concerning the political/history controversies over words. Why should it be? Granted this has been around for months without much expansion, but this isn't necessarily meaningful. This article doesn't concern computers, slang common to under 30 year olds, or the religious/political groups that are common here. There should have been longer warning.--T. Anthony 11:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    - I see now that this was tagged since September. Well possibly no one who can deal with this subject is going to appear. I've appeared, but I'm not sure I'm qualified. Still my objections mostly stand. This is one of those "It doesn't matter to Wikipedia, but does matter in the real world" type issues.--T. Anthony 11:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Wiktionary is a dictionary. It's not set up to deal with issues concerning the political/history controversies over words. — Rubbish. Wiktionary is quite able to deal with discussing disputed usages and disputed etymologies, and for some words already goes into detail about such things. Etymologies and usages are normal fare for Wiktionary. Uncle G 16:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Fg2 Wisco 07:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please read our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary official policy. Uncle G 11:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Maybe this person has done that.--T. Anthony 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    - And now that I've read it I can say your objections don't apply. This article isn't and doesn't have to be about how to use this word or its definition. Added to that what you site mentions articles on words so they are acceptable. It also isn't geneology, etc. Like I said it's too late for me to write a good article on this word, one at the level of Indian giver can possibly be done in time, but still it can be done at some point.--T. Anthony 11:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      - This article is exactly about the word and how to use it. There's nothing in the article that isn't dictionary article content already covered by the Wiktionary article, as I've already pointed out, and as Cryptic points out below. Uncle G 16:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        I'm aware of what it is, but it has potential to be more than that. As you can't deal with what I say on related word/articles you mostly just repeat the same plattitudes. Still I'm not as interested in this. You can delete it and then if I find the appropriate papers/books on the word I'll recreate it later.--T. Anthony 01:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Definition, etymology, usage, more etymology. Zero encyclopedic content. Belongs in Wiktionary. Already there. Why is this contentious? Delete unless someone rewrites it into an encyclopedia article, which I don't think is possible; certainly none of the content currently here will help in doing so. —Cryptic (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - note that we do have similar articles - for example, Nigger. However, an article about the word ought to be included if there are significant debates centered on the word - whether it is offensive, how people ought to react to it, etc. In this case, however, it seems like there is just not enough encyclopedic content to fill an article. --Pierremenard 14:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge the useful bits into Wiktionary (if any). Delete this leftover. It is a good dictionary definition but nothing more. I see little possibility that it can be expanded past the lexical content. The fact that we have not yet cleaned up other inappriate articles about words does not convince me that we should perpetuate the mistake here. By the way, I have no objection to the replacement of this page with a redirect to the Wiktionary entry. Rossami (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete dicdef. mikka (t) 17:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to wiktionary Nick Catalano (Talk) 16:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: see also swot, chilling, porker, ugh, Template:Vocab-stub — Miles←☎ 21:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haft

A poor dictionary definition that already exists on Wiktionary. No need to transcribe. Ifnord 15:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom as dicdef. --Lockley 20:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom.Obina 23:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete dicdef. Please see WP:WWIN. Stifle 12:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halo 2 Glitches

Despite the title, this article doesn't actually tell us anything about any glitches in Halo 2. It's an incoherant mess that doesn't contribute anything to Wikipedia. Delete AJR | Talk 14:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Not an encyclopedia article. Robin Johnson 14:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete unencyclopedic, BJAODN please. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete — personal essay/research; rant. — RJH 18:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as unverified patent nonsense. Sycthos ^Talk 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this is nonsense. Grandmasterka 23:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete this nonsense. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 03:23Z
Delete Ridiculous. Chieftain 23:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Cleanup Not an encyclopedia article, incoherant, non-Wikipedia like. joshua.morgan 03:08, 28 January 2006 (GMT +1100)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with Anabolic Frolic and delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 11:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy 2B Hardcore

nn - vanity Avi 02:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Avi 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete essentially a series of mix CDs of someone's favorite songs. Ruby 02:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Blnguyen 03:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep or merge, notable music series, now collectable, maybe merge into Anabolic_Frolic. Ronabop 07:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ruby. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:46Z
Uh, this is certainly not vanity. I hear these CDs suck, but they're somewhat popular. Keep or merge with Anabolic Frolic. 17000 Google hits. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Anabolic Frolic, that article already has a list of these albums anyway Mushin ^talk 13:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Anabolic Frolic, notable per Google. See also www.happy2bhardcore.com which redirects to www.anabolic-frolic.com. AvB ÷ talk 13:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge with Anabolic Frolic. -- Dragonfiend 15:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ruby. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep... well-known happy hardcore album series. If nothing can be added but a tracklist, should probably be merged though per WP:NOT. --W.marsh 23:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Anabolic Frolic per above. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 01:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT to Culture of Cuba Babajobu 15:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Havana carnivals

Contextless, nonsensical statements that have been on cleanup since June 2005 without change - delete. Eddie.willers 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to Culture of Cuba. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:18Z
Merge and redirect per Quarl. Stifle 12:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hododyne

I say it's a hoax, 0 Google. [17] BadSeed 11:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - hoax, or at best, original research, so unsuitable for WP. --Oscarthecat 11:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, looks like original research and if it isn't, it's unverifiable with no references given. (I'm guessing the creator User:Marlsda is the same person as the D.S. Marlin mentioned in the article.) - Bobet 11:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoax, unverifable. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Hoax, but Hilarious, I'd hate to see it go! —This user has left wikipedia 12:59 2006-01-23
Delete nonsense wrapped in the veneer of mathematics Avi 13:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- Astrokey44|talk 15:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, possible BJAODN candidate. "Newton did so in an a priori fashion." Newton was THAT SMART. Gives a whole new meaning to "finishing before you begin." KrazyCaley 17:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - hoax. Latinus 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 03:30Z

Hi folks. Sorry I did not read the "no original research" restriction before posting this entry to Wikipedia. The hododyne is not a hoax but it is original research and new terminology so I guess it has to get the axe. I can verify the hododyne if a Wikipedia editor in astronomy and physics is willing to contact me. The proof of the hododyne and its role in celestial mechanics is a rather large file of 3 mb but I can send it if it would help to get the hododyne entry here. I'm a big fan of Wikipedia and completely understand the need for strict criteria. - D.S. Marlin, Marlsda@aol.com

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to make a computer virus

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide for crime. Plus somehow I don't think the code examples will actually amount to a global plague. Agamemnon2 12:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom and WP:NOT. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --StoatBringer 13:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Also a small amount of responsibility was taken as he left an email address for further info on the matter. Das Nerd 13:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a school email address, is it not? Don't schools have rules that you shouldn't use their internet accounts for illegal/immoral activity? Either the writer is really careless, or the entire thing is a set-up for the clueless recipient. --Agamemnon2 13:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - illegal content. Regardles of whether or not the info can be used to create a global plague. If not, that would conceivably be a reason to "improve". Let's nip this one in the bud. AvB ÷ talk 13:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nitpick: When describing content as "illegal", it is usually considered proper to mention which laws in which jurisdictions you believe the content to violate. It's not necessary to cite the relevant section and paragraph, but something more precise than "Well, if it isn't, it sure ought to be!" is generally expected. (Or, if that is your rationale, it is better to state it as such rather than merely stating your opinion as law.) While successfully carrying out the activities described in the article may indeed be illegal in many jurisdictions, I believe that in most places merely describing them isn't. For one thing, the U.S., where Wikipedia's servers reside, has something called the First Amendment, which may be relevant. (That said, it's still not encyclopedic, being merely a how-to guide.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete I have been receiving virus warnings every time I am on that page, whether it is on the main page or in the editing box. It's harmful to everyone on Wikipedia and needs to go fast. tv316 15:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iglooneer

Delete: Neologism. Google-test returns just one out of date hit beyond Wikipedia and mirrors. This term might describe contestants at a particular Canadian university in a particular contest, but its use beyond any such notional contest is questionable. --Durin 15:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Pretty much a steaming heap of sled-dog droppings. D e nni ☯ 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, non-notable (no Google hits). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:10Z
BJAODN and delete. Possible violation of WP:NFT. Stifle 12:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -- Jonel | Speak 02:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT TAKE THIS AFD CLOSING AS A MANDATE TO KEEP, MERGE, REDIRECT, DELETE, BLANK, OR ANY OTHER SUCH ACTION. No consensus means exactly that: there is no consensus.

My findings from the commentary in this AfD debate:
- This article is just as contentious as any other anarchism-related article.
- An NPOV, sourced, objective comparison/contrast can be created.
  - Such a comparison/contrast is difficult to create.
  - There will always be disagreements about whether it actually is NPOV, properly sourced, and objective, whether it is or not.
  - This article might well permanently have cleanup tags indicating disputes.
- A primary objection to the article is that it contains pairwise comparison rather than discussion of the span of forms of anarchism.
  - A "See also" section including links to any other pairwise or spectrum analysis articles, or a rightsidebar template or other solution to that effect, would draw attention to other comparison/contrasts.
  - Alternatively, this article could be merged into an article that deals with the entire spectrum.
- The article is US-centric.
- This AfD is extremely poisonous.

My actions and reasoning (these actions, are of course, subject to the normal editing process):
- I am adding a {{Globalize}} tag, as the page is US-centric.
  - This tag should remain until either the page is moved to a title that identifies it as relating to American individualist anarchism or it is given an international perspective.
- I am adding a {{OriginalResearch}} tag.
  - This is not because the article is inherently OR, but because it is prone to have OR inserted into it. This article needs copious citations of specific arguments as well as a general reference list. Please add such citations before removing the OR tag.
- I am adding a {{Controversial3}} tag to the talk page.
  - That this subject is controversial is beyond doubt.
- I am blanking this AfD.
  - There are a few compelling, well-thought-out comments made in it, but they are dwarfed by the attacks from both sides. If anyone has a need of or interest in reading it, please refer to page history.
- I am leaving the page where it is.
  - Feel free to consider merging, redirecting, or nominating for deletion again; do so on the article's talk page. I am recusing myself from any further decisions regarding the page's future.

Again, I have found NO CONSENSUS in this debate.

-- Jonel | Speak 02:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Debate removed to page history. No consensus was found. Please check the history if you are willing to sort through numerous personal attacks to read the arguments for and against deletion.

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to insurrection. Owen× ☎ 20:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insurrectionist

dicdef Melaen 18:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to insurrection or rebellion. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom as dicdef. --Lockley 20:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as per CanadianCaesar. Arviragus 05:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to insurrection. Youngamerican 17:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Technologies and INtelligent Technologies

Textbook spam Esprit15d 14:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom Coyote-37 15:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please specify which of the criteria for speedy deletion that you feel this page meets, and/or tag it with a {{db}} tag. Stifle 12:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete: nn. --Ragib 16:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Blahblahblah. The BSmeter has gone offscale. D e nni ☯ 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 12:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Irth Online. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 11:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irth

See AfD for Irth Online. Fictional entity in probably non-notable game. Lukas 07:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Irth Online if that is kept; else delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 09:00Z
Merge per Quarl.--Ezeu 09:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Quarl. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP Babajobu 10:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irth Online

"Blatant spam for non notable game. Article even contains an invitation to join the game. If author wants to clean up to show notability then keep, else Delete with extreme prejudice. TheRingess 05:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. The invitation to join has apparently been revoked, so I will probably remain ignorant about Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games. I googled around though, and it seems Irth Online is notable in MMORPG circles.--Ezeu 05:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. --King of All the Franks 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep as apparently notable; article needs to show how it is notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:41Z
Comment: see also Irth, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irth. Lukas 07:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep 200k google hits for "Irth Online" -- Astrokey44|talk 14:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:57, Jan. 29, 2006

[edit] ISDC

non notable software house Melaen 13:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete 58 Google hits = Pretty Small Potatoes. D e nni ☯ 01:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 03:25Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Owen× ☎ 21:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam in South Africa

I can't see a Hinduism in South Africa, for example. I dare say this could be NN. Compu te r Jo e 20:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep If we're keeping Islam in Iceland then this must be more notable. Dlyons493 Talk 21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. The article has enough material to cover for the subject to be notable enough to keep, and it's a bit too big (at present) for a merge to South Africa. –Sommers ^(Talk) 21:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Impossible to understand why anyone would want to delete this. Merchbow 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. This article could add value. Spelud 07:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep (keep the cleanup tag too). I don't understand the nomination; is it that there are too many or too few Muslims / Hindus in South Africa to be notable? ×Meegs 21:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep I agree it needs cleanup, but it looks to be pretty substantial and noteworthy. I think it's too big to merge into any Culture of South Africa or Islam article.--T. Anthony 06:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Dimensions

WP:NOT Self-Promotion, Advertising . Also identical content to 5 or 6 similar stubs Alex Bartho 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Utterly misleading title. Stifle 12:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Sceptr e ^(Talk) 11:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete While Zakir Abdul Karim Naik seems to be somewhat known, this article seems to be on one of his books "islamic dimensions" .... not notable. —This user has left wikipedia 13:12 2006-01-29

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iyaaz Jaadulla Naseem

Non notable. Google returns null for this query. Could not find anything supporting this article on the web. Oblivious 10:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as vanity. Iyaaz, this sort of material is more appropriate for your user page. Zarquon 11:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Zarquon, I accept this sort of material is more appropriate for my user page. Iyaaz 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. All info is on Iyaaz's userpage. PJM 13:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity, various searches bring up nothing. Mushin ^talk 13:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanity but wanted to point out that searches DO bring up something: His ~~arabic~~ dhivehi name brings Hizbollah as top search: [18] and his name brings up some pages, guestbooks, geocities [19] Google with your head, not just copy-paste! —This user has left wikipedia 14:39 2006-01-23
Delete per above. Arviragus 18:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --M @th wiz 2020 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator. Hall Monitor 22:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable vanity biography. I'm not convinced by those Google hits. 4.5 million hits; are any of them relevant? The Hizbollah page is a masked domain that doesn't load. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 04:48Z

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Hsu

Fails WP:MUSIC, and judging from the comments on User talk:Jack71483, this article appears to be part of an ongoing problem of non-notable autobiographies. –Sommers ^(Talk) 14:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable vanity, does not meet established WP:MUSIC criteria. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep needs a serious cleanup ... but he did perform at Carnegie Hall in 2000. That alone warrants at least SOME information on the guy. Claims "first place in the yearly annual Nankin Er-Hu competition" that would probably pass as "Has won or placed in a major music competition." He also appears to have collaborated with several independant bands/musicians one of which was signed to Polydor... Per my standards this just barely squeeks by. Of course this all hinges on whether or not this can be verified. Cant be verified ... nuke it. ALKIVAR™ 22:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Performing at Carnegie Hall is impressive, but lots of people perform there as members of an orchestra or band, and surely Wikipedia needn't have an individual article for every one of them. The article doesn't assert that this isn't the case for Hsu; on the contrary, it implies that he was there as a member of the NYC Opera Orchestral program. If he performed there solo, then yeah, that would be another story. Also, I agree with your point about verifiability; thanks for bringing it up. –Sommers ^(Talk) 16:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A google search for "Nankin Er-Hu" only brings back the MySpace page this guy created. I can't verify the Carnegie Hall info either. And anyway, I've performed hundreds of shows during my life including at Minneapolis' Orchestra Hall twice, Ted Mann Concert Hall a bunch of times, First Avenue once, and as part of A Prairie Home Companion once, and neither I nor my band could be considered anywhere close to notable... Yet. Grandmasterka 01:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This AFD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line.Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Alkivar. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Simply performing once at Carnegie Hall in 2000 is not sufficient. Crunch 12:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Apparently one in a series of vanity articles created by this person. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 12:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nice music on myspace but unverified. myspace pages do not count as verification -- Astrokey44|talk 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator, does not meet WP:BIO nor WP:MUSIC. Hall Monitor 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Most of the Google stuff is his own pages. The two of them are on

[20] but whats that one show? Defunkier 13:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

- What about this other guy Akimasa Nihongi - he's got like 65 Googles and the same guy User talk:Jack71483 created the article. He was a student in Berklee OK (sold his bed on their site ;) but is his record stuff for real? Defunkier 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete... no news articles on him in Proquest/Newsbank, no notability. Calwatch 04:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom 15:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Nishiyama

Non-notable bio. Possible vanity. Biggest claim to fame is getting 6% of the vote in a regional election. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete 420 votes in a whole province of Canada? Ruby 03:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This guy could be notable in the future, but for now, not notable enough.
Speedy delete db-bio Avi 05:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not notable yet. --King of All the Franks 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable biography, as per WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 07:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:02Z
Delete, non-notable biography. JIP | Talk 10:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as non-notable vanity biography // used for election purposes? —This user has left wikipedia 12:32 2006-01-23
Delete nn per nom. Mushin ^talk 14:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom 15:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Schwaede

I don't think this is a speedy candidate, but it is either a hoax, a vanity page, patent nonsense or a combination of all three. Delete Atrian 04:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete for being WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 05:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom - Nortonew 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a speedy delete He "became a vigilante known as Wolfman" who fought "a Neo-Nazi German bear from the future" -- Astrokey44|talk 05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It even fails WP:BALLS and WP:BJAODN. It is WP:Stupid and qualifies only for Speedy delete. --Ezeu 06:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax and non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:47Z
Speedy delete as non-notable bio, verging on patent nonsense. Robin Johnson 11:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above --BadSeed 11:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per Robin Johnson. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete would go to WP:BJAODN but unfortunately it's far from funny. Mushin ^talk 14:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. I've disregarded duplicate votes, anonymous users, sockpuppet accounts, and all combinations thereof, so bahhh! — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 02:07, Jan. 29, 2006

[edit] Jazz and Dave

Non-notable page about a pub crawl. --Whouk (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Follow up: This pub crawl is extremely popular in Cambridge and is not simply present in one instance. Therefore it cannot be defined as "non-notable". Any suggestions on how to improve the quality of the page in question for it to remain on the website would be helpful. --Dav_H (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
delete Pub crawls are inherently non-encyclopedic. BadSeed 14:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day - even Cambridge. Robin Johnson 14:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'm not even convinced the article takes itself seriously. James084 14:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep First of all, BadSeed, Surely the definition of encyclopedia ("A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.") entirely disproves your notion that pub crawls are "inherently non-encyclopedic". The phrase "wide range of subjects" surely encompasses that of pub-crawling which isn't exactly unknown of in the wider community! Robin Johnson I'm sad to inform you that you are entirely incorrect in your presumption that this article was made by schoolboys. It was made by a bunch of Cambridge students; who believe it definitely has a right to be publicised as it is simply renowned in Cambridge. As for James084; try and make a cogent point next time. I hope you take this information into account when choosing whether it should be deleted. It definitely doesn't in my opinion as it is, by any standards, a "notable" (as you put it) piece of information. Dav_H 15:10, 23 January 2006
- Comment Concerning your definiton of an encyclopedia, see WP:NOT. Interestingly the article claims the pub crawl was Devised by idealists James Welland and David Holding... in this case Cambridge students are no better than school boys. --BadSeed 15:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Google hits? 362. Number that refer to a pub crawl? 0. Nothing renown about that. Ifnord 15:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please look carefully at history before voting, multiple vandalisms in progress. Ifnord 15:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete blatently non-notable. Tsk. Students. Coyote-37 15:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep i will be sad to see the page go, but no hard feelings. If you would like to join a Jazz and Dave pub crawl for a taster of the experience, feel free to join us on the 7th February at The Maypole 7pm. I hope you all can join the group. I have been dismayed to find rumours of a hoax. This is not part of the idealistic spirit purported by Jazz and Dave. I bid you adieu.Dav_H 16:14, 23 January 2006
- Comment added by User:212.44.18.150, who'd previously vandalised this page [21] [22]--BadSeed 16:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The article describes a pub crawl made up by two students one day. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The article cites no sources where this pub crawl is documented outside of Wikipedia, and neither Ifnord nor I have been able to find any sources. It is very likely that Dav_H, the creator of the article, is the "David Holding" mentioned in the article as the inventor of the pub crawl. There is no evidence that this pub crawl has been acknowledge by anyone other than its creators and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge, and its creators are clearly documenting it directly here in Wikipedia. This is a mis-use of Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance. The article is both unverifiable and original research. The place for this is the author's own web site. Delete. Uncle G 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'd put my reasons but Uncle G summed it up so eloquently, also I would like to add if you wiki pub crawl you get information on not only pub crawling itself but some of the more famous ones. If pub crawls are inherently non-encyclopedic then one has to question why this is on wiki. Though I do agree that this one should be deleted due to lack of sources amongst other things. --ImmortalGoddezz 18:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. per Uncle G. Crunch 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G. - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, pub crawls are not notable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. Sorry guys, we can't help rewrite to make it a keep - it is the entry that is a problem not the write up.Obina 23:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
KeepI'm from Saffron Walden outside fairly close to Cambridge but we have the themed pub crawl out here. It may not be notable in other places, but in the East and Cambridgeshire it's legendary. Duck123 09.29 24 January 2006
- Comment: User's first edit. --Whouk (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep This page is hilarious. I'm a student in London and this is one of the freshest ideas of a pub crawl I've heard. Sure it isn't notable, but I know I'm gonna try this pub crawl out ASAP. Sorpor 9:40 24 January 2006
- Comment: User's first edit. --Whouk (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep I haven't signed up as a user on wikipedia, but is this article really going to do any harm to anyone by keeping it? This whole argument just seems childish to me! However it is hilarious to see people wasting their time arguing over this irrelevant matter! Oh and there are loads of other pub crawl wikipedia entries - just look at Pub_crawl and there's loads under there! Antonin Lauderau.
Keep I am a student from cambridge and i have heard of the Jazz and Dave pub crawl. This crawl is in its early stages, but is quickly growing in success. The article is hilarious and what more could we want from a pub crawl.
Keep Jazz and Dave have been rapidly growing in popularity throughout both Cambridge and the surrounding villages. This crawl has become one of Cambridge's weekly highlights and as such deserves a place in such a distinguished body of information.
- Comment - all of the last three unsigned Keeps came from the same IP address. --Whouk (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - appears to be an in-joke from Cambridge University students. My family lives in Cambridge and aren't familiar with it. Essexmutant 12:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep (attack on Whouk removed Obina 00:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC) did edit not voted keep) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.18.150 (talk • contribs)
Keep I feel that this is a well structured, positive entry into a widespread and very helpful online reference point. If we restrict what can be added to this open source website who knows the consequences? Knowledge is power and blocking the window to enlightenment is a heinous crime that will result in the degradation of our society. I'm from peterborough, near cambridge and if you stand still at night, on the south-east tower in a full moons epox you can hear the faint sounds of "dave, you rule, man" "awww, sungjae" "bu, dont forget this time ok" "hit the road jazz" "ln1??" and other such beejees hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.229.7 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: Having seen your obvious desire to keep this section up and running I must admit I have changed my mind, shaved and got a job, albeit in my mothers profession. The nights are long but it's worth it in the end. 19:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC) --~~Whouk (talk)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.229.7 (talk • contribs)
  - Yeah, that wasn't me. Sigh. Still, if anyone wants to rename this Whoukipedia, I ain't gonna complain :-) --Whouk (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Good call Whouk, good call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.56.33 (talk • contribs)

Comment Chin Up, Whouk. (Some attacks removed). Sockpuppets keeps left.Obina 00:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep I think this should be kept, it seems like a sound article to me. 81.103.22.100 08:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
You know where I standEssexmutant, I would love it for you to join the group on Friday the 10th February at 7pm (posted wrong day by accident back there). We will be in the Maypole around that time and would enjoy your company. Their truely will be Cadbury's Creme eggs up for grabs, so if you won't stay for the crawl, at least stay for an egg, on us. That goes for everyone else on this page. Look forward to seeing you there. Dav H 20:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep I say we keep this mofo of an artical. What harm does it do, its poinless arguing about this when we can argue about more relevant problems around the world, HIV and Wars for instance. I say come down to Cambridge, yeah that's to Whouk, Badseed and all your buddies, to get a taste of the best darn pub crawl that you're ever gonna have. That's assuming your all old enough to drink or leave your Mothers' houses and get back by curfew.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 81.96.66.135 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The above is the user's first edit. Also, I'd like to take a moment and note my gratitute for the closing admin who'll voluntarily sort through and discard the anon meatpuppets to find the true consensus of the community -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep The external source is up and running:www.freepgs.com/jazzanddave. Feel free to sign-up. A newsletter will hopefully soon be in place Dav H 12:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo Helansky

delete non notable inventor (he invented the camoflauged deer blind). Melaen 20:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

He's from this "Missippi". That help any? ;D (OK sorry, but that amused me). 68.39.174.238 20:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - per nom James084 21:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete The article says more about his invention than the inventor himself; that said, it merely repeats itself whilst making no claim as to the subject's notability. Violation of WP:BIO. (aeropagitica) 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above and throw in the fact that Google seems, for the most part, blind to old Jimbo. [23] PJM 21:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn, no google hits Avi 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The article does make a claim of notability (inventing a product), so it's not eligible for speedy deletion. PJM 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you verify that this poor soul who only lived to the age of 23 invented this device? Regardless, this is not an invention if it is not a hoax, it is an improvement on an existingproduct (hunting blinds) that have been around from before 1967. So it remains non-notable and eligible for speedy, IMO. Regardless, I think we agree it should be tossed.Avi 22:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

All I'm pointing out to you is policy. Per A7, if a biographical article has a claim of notability, it should not get speedied. Yes, we can investigate the claim and decide to 'toss' it in AFD, obviously. But it's not a speedy. PJM 22:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 20:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimjams

dicdef Melaen 18:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Dictionary Definition. Arviragus 19:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:22Z

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Byrne vs. Eric Larsen

This supposed comic book does not exist.

Delete. Pc13 20:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Pc13 68.148.192.33 22:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 00:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. -- Dragonfiend 15:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, utter hoax Dyslexic agnostic 07:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge with Augusta, Kentucky (don't none of y'all get tempted to start vote-counting now). Onya, Quarl! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Laycock

Delete as vanity and failure to establish notability - also for being localpoliticocruft. Eddie.willers 17:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

delete Non notable small town local politition. Has had a long enough time for other basis of notability.Obina 23:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Augusta, Kentucky. Claim to notability: The mayor is the first in the Commonwealth of Kentucky to win a write in a public office. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:09Z
Delete, no merge. The article looks extremely fishy to me, and I've been unable to verify anything in it. "Supreme Excellency" is certainly not the honorific for an American mayor (it would be "The Honorable"), and I have a hard time believing this guy's name is "Johnathan," particularly when there's no evidence of that on official town or state websites. This isn't vanity; this was written by an Augusta, KY resident who'd had a few too many mint juleps. Chick Bowen 02:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a hoax, just inaccurate. The "Supreme Excellency" part might have been a joke. Kentucky Secretary of State Land Office lists John Laycock as the mayor of Augusta, Kentucky, and there are a few other references such as the Kentucky Post. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-27 23:06Z
I have cleaned up the article. Merging would just require pasting the two sentences to Augusta, Kentucky and the reference. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-27 23:11Z
Merge, seems legit. --Brian1979 14:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Lennon's death

Firstly, there doesn't need to be a whole other article on John Lennon's death, and secondly, this has conspiracy theory hoax written all over it. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete "...probably...some people think..." Neither educational nor authoritative - unreferenced speculation. (aeropagitica) 21:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Anything other than the facts, which are stated in John Lennon, obviously scrape WP:NOR. PJM 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - it looks like an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Latinus 21:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unverifiable, possible hoax Avi 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above, unreferenced OR. --Muchness 23:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Seems to be original research. — TheKMan^talk 23:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable death hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 01:54Z

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio. Mushroom 13:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Matlow

non notable Melaen 17:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep and expand — Based on his (linked) biography he may more notable than he first appears in this article. He is an environmentalist; Campaign Director of Earthroots; regular columnist; ran for provincial by-election in 2002, &c. — RJH 18:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn-bio. Stifle 12:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. South African Child Care Foundation should have been listed separately, but seeing as consensus was achieved for it too, both articles are deleted. Owen× ☎ 21:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Mboya Dada and South African Child Care Foundation

Cannot confirm existence of subject of article. Weregerbil 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Google finds nothing on this apparently famous person. Neither google nor amazon.com seem to know of the book Being Black. Can't find anything on his 15-year-old foundation South African Child Care Foundation. Can anyone find evidence that any of these exist? Weregerbil 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The article was created by User:JMDADA , who made an edit also on South African Student Organization. --Melaen 19:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom as unverifiable and per Melaen as probable vanity. --Lockley 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete and add South African Child Care Foundation to the Afd as probable hoax. Dlyons493 Talk 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I would say userfy, but it sounds hoax-y. howch e ng {chat} 00:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I bundled South African Child Care Foundation at this point. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:35Z

Delete all as unverifiable, possible hoax. Probably a 419 scam in the making. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:31Z
Comment: Don't forget to remove unverifiable information added to South African Student Organization, Steve Biko (as 85.176.188.1 (talk · contribs)) and possibly others. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:39Z
Delete Per above. Banez 06:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. I smell a whiff of vanity in the Mboya Dada article. --Ezeu 09:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as hoax. Mushroom 05:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JYoung

Thoroughly unverifiable musician.-- Perfecto 05:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.Speedy delete as patent nonsense as per Zoe below. --Perfecto 05:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Perfecto. Mike _{(T C)} 06:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Mushroom 06:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:42Z
Delete as non-notable biography. —This user has left wikipedia 12:47 2006-01-23
Delete per Quarl. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Recently slain in Iraq. --
- The above is by User:216.86.70.63. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, the image and its caption make it clear this is a hoax, as is much of the original editor's history (much of which has been deleted). And this edit is educational. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 10:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kapusta

Part foreign-language dic-def, part neologism, and part linkspam for podcruft. Delete with extreme prejudice. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:08, Jan. 23, 2006

Delete per nom TheRingess 05:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom - Nortonew 05:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEO. Dbtfz 05:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:41Z
Delete as part dicdef, part neologism, part podcast. JIP | Talk 10:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. It is also Czech name for cabbage but AFAIK WP does not try to be dictionary of foreign words. Pavel Vozenilek 03:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. incog 01:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above. --Timecop 01:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - as spam -- Femmina 01:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - garbage Cptchipjew 04:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 11:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 23:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karn, silver golem

non-notable, non-encyclopedic golemcruft ➥the Epopt 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PJM 21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, nn Avi 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom James084 22:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as Magic the Gathering cruft. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 01:52Z
Hmm. Karn is about as notable as you can get, in terms of M:tG characters, but that doesn't necessarily warrant him an article. And even if it did, this is not that article. Weak Delete. Marblespire 04:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-encyclopedic, or merge into an article on MTG charcers if it exists. Stifle 12:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and possibly rewrite for an article on characters in MTG. Luvcraft 15:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep notable character. Grue 14:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 07:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Jackson (painter)

unimportant Hulgetta 06:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Done, page now redirects as well. Ifnord 02:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kelley Rink

No reason for notability given. Merge with Conte Forum Nv8200p talk 04:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Conte Form]. Crunch 05:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:59Z
Merge with Conte Forum. I went to BC, and virtually nobody except the announcer at the hockey games ever refers to Kelley Rink in isolation from Conte. Haikupoet 05:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 07:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kirk Markley

delete Hulgetta 06:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please provie a reason for deleting this artcle. Mike _{(T C)}

06:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kluang station

un-notable shop, may be it sells excellent coffee but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Melaen 19:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. Per nom. Arviragus 19:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A single non-chain coffee shop in a mall somewhere is a bit non-notable. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability of subject, unless it is the only place in the whole of Malaysia where one can buy coffee? I don't think so. (aeropagitica) 21:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:28Z
Delete non-notable and maybe vanity as well, debatableBrian1979 02:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kool Kat Musik

Non-notable record label, claims to have been around since 1981 but less than 500 Google hits?! I'm not sure if this qualified for speedy deletion so I'm nominating it for AfD. Cyde Weys 21:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I don't know if it's speediable either but I'll settle for a slow deletion. Stifle 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. How did it issue an album in 1981 if it was started in 1998? Chick Bowen 02:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Samw 00:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deletion. Broken S 00:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuja105 Reborn

Article was created, I suppose, in memory of a gamer who committed suicide recently. Story info. The article itself only contained an image of the victim, which was not authorized by the subject or his family. Personally, I find the whole thing rather obscene (the article title, picture, everything) and would like to see it made gone as fast as possible. -Asriel 21:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, as per above. Or Speedy delete if anyone else agrees -Asriel 21:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - it's sad but not encyclopaedic. Eddie.willers 21:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, short article with no context / CSD A1. --Muchness 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete it now, no context no assertion of notability --kingboyk 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete db-bio Avi 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete I have tagged it for speedy, though both tags were briefy removed now reverted. The current speedy reason is no content, though if the content is added back, then the reason is db-bio. Either way is a speedy candidate.. I think the photo should also be removed.Obina 21:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a speedy delete to the photo as well. -Asriel 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lala Mustafa Zadeh

As far as I and Google can tell, she's non notable. --Missmarple 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - not notable enough for an article. Latinus 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Competition results only go back to 1995 at [24]. One non-wiki Ghit at [25] definite verifiability and notability problems. Dlyons493 Talk 21:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 01:20Z
Hi. I suggest this article be kept, as it might be interesting for the people, who are interested in Azeri and South Caucasus musicians and jazz pianist Vaghif Mustafa-Zadeh. You can check the results of Epinal Piano Competition here. Grandmaster 09:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as winner of a redlinked competition, notability is very questionable. Stifle 12:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, winner of very minor competition. Chick Bowen 02:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 17:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry_Hama

Hama is a noted comic-book professional and should be included in Wiki. However, even after my deletion of a "Legacy" section filled with such self-aggrandizing and evidently self-written hype as

The significance of Larry Hama's work has yet to be fully recognized by his generation ... for the role it played in the molding of the generations to follow.

this clearly autobiographical piece of work by the living author violates Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:No original research.

It is also a huge article, and without citations as to what is established fact and what is original research, it would be difficult if not impossible to fix. Read it for yourself. Go back to the History page, and read the Legacy section for yourself.

I strongly suggest it be deleted and that someone in Wikiproject:Comics write an objective entry. Tenebrae 14:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep and clean up... no need to delete it. PJM 14:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Deletion isn't the solution to this situation. It's for articles that shouldn't exist, not those that need fixing (or even a complete rewrite if that were necessary). The subject is notable and an appropriate topic for an article, and the solution to problems with the content of the article lie in the Dispute Resolution realm. Tverbeek 14:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Obviously notable. Monicasdude 15:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep. As above. I'm not sure I even agree that this article needs a clean-up tag.Coyote-37 15:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This entry is not autobiographical. In fact, I had to add the sentence about Hama's Broadway role in a Sondheim production, since the original author was apparently unaware of this! Pepso 18:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and clean up (if still necessary) as above. 23skidoo 19:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It does need some rearranging, to give more prominence to his comic book work, but I fail to see why it was nominated in the first place. Hama is fairly well-known, has a long career, and worked on famous characters. Pc13 20:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This from the editor who had brought it up as a deletion request, since User:Tverbeek, others and I did huge amounts of work on it in the past day or two to clean it up. To answer User:Pc13's wondering about why it was nominated, I cited four major specifics. You'll be amused and amazed if you go back and read the original Hama article; as someone other than me wrote of it, "The whole 'legacy' section was an inappropriate strokefest, and the rest of the article frequently ventured off into 'fannish celebrity profile' territory". I hadn't thought it was salvageable — but then I went and helped salvage it, so what do I know! :-) Tenebrae 10:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- None of that justifies freaking out and listing an article for deletion! Read the deletion policy. This AfD listing has been a thoughtless waste of people's time. Tverbeek 21:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the original article, and I am both a friend and fan of Larry Hama. I opted to do this on my own but I had Mr. Hama review the biography section for accuracy. The Legacy section was 100% my personal contribution. Seeing how many comic book writers Mr. Tenebrae has written about and/or edited makes me question if his claims are based on his own bias. Overall, the "self stroking" only appears to be his own. To questions its appropriateness for Wikipedia blows my mind. "Fannish celebrity profile" This is an encyclopedia that gives the life history for video game charaters not exactly high-brow educational material. And this is a website where anyone with a pompous ego can re-write history. To my amazement some "editor" changed Mr. Hama's ethnicity! It takes some unique individuals to rewrite an authorized biography - give yourselves a pat on the back.
Keep. Seriously, I can't see any reason to AfD the article about the man who practically wrote everything about G.I.Joe. JIP | Talk 10:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-band. Mushroom 13:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laura (band)

Band with no evidence of notability. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 15:42Z

We can speedy delete these now. Stifle 12:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howch e ng {chat} 00:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Thomas

Delete. Non-notable band member. See also: Rockbot — Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. PJM 17:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leviathan Review

Article is a review of an album by the band Mastadon. Reviews are not a proper subject for an encyclopedia. Fuhghettaboutit 03:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and nn band (no assertion of chart position or notable members). Ruby 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn band vanity Avi 05:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Sjc 05:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as essay. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:02Z
They're obscured by the essay format, but there are some strong claims to notability in the article (Relapse Records, Warner Brothers Records, Ozzfest). Anyway, it seems that there are articles for both Mastodon (band) or Leviathan (album) already. Except for possibly the bit about their charitable work at the end, it looks like all of the suitable information is already present in those articles, so Delete. ×Meegs 10:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete although WikiReviews sounds like an interesting project original research. —This user has left wikipedia 12:29 2006-01-23

I think epinions has that covered Fuhghettaboutit 13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete — Reviews? Not strictly encyclopaedic. Kareeser|^Talk! 16:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ligadua

1. In my entire have never heard of anyone called Ligadua.

2. " The royal drum is very important in Fijian society" this statement is pure fiction - and just what the hell is a royal drum?

3. "if Ligadua is not properly honored by the King, he will take away all the royal drums, and, by proxy, the king's authority" a statement completely devoid of meaning and factual basis.

This article has no references, and makes statements that are false.--Xorkl000 03:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly no expert on Polynesian mythology, but the term gets 0 relevant Google hits, which is rather suspicious. Unless some verification is produced, I say delete. Dbtfz 04:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete If the sources previously quoted are considered unverifiable, trash the nonsense :) Avi 22:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
delete, if www.pantheon.org is the best reference you can find. They are extremely unreliable, especially as regards the Pacific, and regularly are the only sources for articles at AFD which have no factual basis (the most recent of which, IIRC, was Nganga). Grutness...wha? 05:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:00Z
Delete as unverifiable.--Ezeu 10:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rename to Lingadua and rewrite.--Ezeu 09:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. Robin Johnson 11:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. —This user has left wikipedia 12:37 2006-01-23
Delete as unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Article on Fiji itself suggests that the King of Fiji and most indigenous Fijians are Christians; this makes the article's claims implausible. Smerdis of Tlön 16:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mushin ^talk 17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, besides being misspelled, it's a copyvio from pantheon.org. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of English words of Romanian origin

There is only one entry in the list, Alb, and I very much suspect that it is wrong (from Latin, alba, according to OED). ~~If an article can be written with more entries, and entries which are correct, that would be good, but~~ there's nothing worth keeping here. Delete Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete both English and Romanian are largely Latin languages i believe, so there might be many overlaps, like 'alb', but very few actual loan words :: Supergolden 16:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists for words, even if the list were longer than one. -R. fiend 16:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per R. fiend. --DelftUser 20:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
A list? You're having me on. If it's expanded, then transwiki to Wiktionary, but definite delete from here. Stifle 12:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I've just read the discussion on the talk page for Lists of English words of international origin (a list of lists), and agree that wiktionary would be a better place for all of this kind of stuff. There's an article of encyclopedic content English words of Greek origin, which I think is the best way for WP to deal with specific language-to-language loaning, history, etymology, etc. Hence I've struck out the bit of my nom I've changed my mind about. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 20:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Irish session venues

WP:NOT travel guide. NicM 17:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Also unmaintainable and US-centric. Dlyons493 Talk 21:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not encyclopedic and there are several other sites which do a fairly good job of tracking Irish sessions. --Craig Stuntz 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 03:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- unmaintainable. Haikupoet 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete for the moment, this belongs in Wikitravel if anything but we can't transwiki it. Stifle 12:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, default action is Keep. Babajobu 11:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of magic organizations

Delete as redundant with Category:Magic organizations -- Krash 21:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak (speedy?) keep. Lists are never redundant with categories. The two serve different purposes and can coexist peacefully. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong speedy keep. MarkSweep is right. WriterFromAfar755 22:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- How is this different from the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magic clubs? -- Krash 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Learn how to use categories. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Learn that categories and lists have different abilities and different purposes. Sometimes something is better in one form or the other. In this case, it is useful as a list, as - as it grows - it can incude information about location, date of formation, branch of magic etc, in a way that categories are unable to do. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- A excuse to not actually read the articles, then? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 02:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  - definitely. It's a hell of a lot easier finding the one article you're looking for by scrolling through a quick summary of all of them on this list than to have to open, check and read all the articles in a category. Especially if the list grows to, say, 20-50 items. Grutness...wha? 09:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as the category is already sufficient. Stifle 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Category:Magic organizations is sufficient, and the more noteworthy organizations can be listed there when needed --TStone 14:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Wizards (Middle-earth). Owen× ☎ 17:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Middle-earth Wizards

Redundant with Wizards (Middle-earth), which contains the information present in the list. - Sikon 08:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to Wizards (Middle-earth). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:59Z
Redirect - most of the information is already in the other article, and a good portion of that which isn't is speculative or incorrect ('Morinohtar' instead of 'Morinehtar', assuming that 'Morinehtar = Pallando' and 'Romestamo = Alatar', assigning Gandalf to 'the people' of both Manwe and Varda... when it might have been neither, et cetera). --CBD _☎ ^✉ 11:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete The list will never be larger than five items. Ruby 12:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Ruby. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I put the table, being the only content not already there, into Wizards (Middle-earth), where it can be corrected if necessary :: Supergolden 17:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - no one's going to search for this exact phrase, so why bother with the redirect? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wizards (Middle-earth) should be moved to Wizard (Middle-earth) in accordance with Wikipedia style, but that's other topic. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 00:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Thesquire. Essexmutant 11:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as LotRcruft. Stifle 12:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Wizards (Middle-earth) per above Nick Catalano (Talk) 16:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 11:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list of notable stock photographers

Sublist of list of photographers. This list currently contains one (1) entry, which is already part of the list of photographers. If and when that list becomes too large, we can think about breaking it up into smaller lists, at which point this list may or may not be recreated (definitely without the redundant "notable" in its title). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: The list has since been expanded. However, all of the 3 existing articles linked to are already on the list of photographers, and the inclusion of Nachtwey and Rowell here is debatable (neither is primarily known for their stock photography). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Many prominent stock photographers are primarily known for something other than stock photography. Fg2 08:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Nominator. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. howch e ng {chat} 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete One item does not make a list. When we get to ten, we can try again. D e nni ☯ 02:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a red link farm. Also, it appears to be inherently POV and of little interest to those who do not have a serious interest in stock photography. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 12:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Useful list Fg2 08:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep For these reasons: 1)Stock photography is a multi-billion dollar international industry. Maybe you thought it was just a hobby? 2)Information about the top players is very difficult to find - which makes this list valuable to anyone wanting to learn about the industry. Both from an artist/photographer perspective and from a financial/business perspective. 3) This information isn't found anywhere else on the Internet as far as I can tell. --cda 15:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of rhetorical terms

Only one word. Not worth it. Compu te r Jo e 21:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as listcruft. Even though it only has only one item (hence, not a list) and the one item doesn't even amount to cruft. Ifnord 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Lots of room for expansion. Useful reference list. Dlyons493 Talk 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete When someone can add a score more, re-start it Avi 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Question Is the main problem the current lack of content? If so, I'll add some as it's a standard area with lots available. Or have people some more fundimental objection to the list? Dlyons493 Talk 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep but populate. Rhetoric is an established art with specialized terminology; this is a potentially useful reference. --Muchness 22:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Cautiously keep. Besides needing content, it needs a clear definition of "rhetorical terms." Crunch 01:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Have a look at Zeugma -feedback appreciated. Dlyons493 Talk 01:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete "Lots of room for expansion" barely begins to describe the pathetic state of this article. Come back when we can list ten terms. Keep There are now more than ten items. Thanks for the expansion, Matt. Denni ☯ 02:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Don't think so, thanks :-) Dlyons493 Talk 03:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep if somebody promises they are going to work on it in the near future. According to its talk page, it's intended as part of a a rhetorics wikiportal, so I suppose there must be some previously established contributor interest? Delimitation of the topic area is not a problem; rhetorics is a very well-defined scholarly area with a long tradition, and "lists of rhetorical terms" abound in the literature. There are even specialist dictionaries of rhetorical terms. This is definitely a useful idea for a page, and I think the list page is also superior to a category-based alternative in this case, as per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I now see there already is a Category "Figures of Speech", but the two domains are probably not exactly identical, although they will overlap. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This list appears to be a list that would be permanently incomplete and may have been created just for the purpose of having such a list. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 12:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. We have plenty of articles on rhetorical terms (chiasmus, euphemism, anaphora etc.) and there should be some central place to reach them.

I just left a message on the creator's talk page after he left a message on mine complaining about the move (from "Glossary" to "list" which I felt was more fitting). He definitely has plans to expand it, and I ought to help. Daniel Case 17:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. After reading the creator's plans, it is clear to me that this list would be an excellent addition to the encyclopedia. I hope he and his students are not harrassed away. Maybe Wikipedia should have a policy about the treatment of newcomers. -Acjelen 18:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

(Note: This is from the creator, who moved the article back to "Glossary of rhetorical terms" and posted this here. Daniel Case 17:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC))

I'm not certain why this page was nominated for deletion, but perhaps the issue can be resolved if I explain my rationale for creating the page. I am Matt Barton, an English professor who has been using wikis in teaching for some years now. This semester, I had the idea of having the graduate students in my rhetorical theory course build a Rhetoric Portal for wikipedia--one that would match the quality of the Philosophy philosophy wikiportal. As part of the project, I wanted the class to create a glossary of terms that are frequently found in rhetorical treatises. This glossary would consist of rhetorical terms with brief, one-line definitions, with all the terms linking to full-page articles (that the class will work to develop as the semester progresses). My plan is to use the Rhetoric Wikiportal as a "homebase," if you will, for developing and extending the rhetorical theory coverage at the wikipedia. If this page is deleted, it may negatively impact a class that is already struggling with "the whole wiki thing," if you will, and probably undercut their confidence in me.

Thanks, --Matt 17:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete - I can't see what this unmanageable page can do better than a catagory. Ian¹³_ID:540053 21:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps the answer is: the same thing that other people have felt could be done well through pages like Glossary of library and information science terms, Glossary of spirituality-related terms, Glossary of the Third Reich, Topology glossary, Glossary of differential geometry and topology, etc., etc.? Look for more of these things under Category:Glossaries or List of glossaries. They are all over the place. If there's one scholarly discipline that's really pre-destined to have such a thing, it's classical rhetorics (a closed body of established, classical knowledge; terminology in widespread use across several neighbouring disciplines but partly inaccessible to the non-specialist due to its Latinate/Greek roots; useful combination of short definition within list page with more detailed explanation in main articles; pure listing of article titles on a category page would be opaque to the non-specialist.) - And why "unmanagable", for heaven's sake? It's a closed, stable, well-circumscribed field, and many of the articles are already there. It took me twenty minutes this morning to add half a dozen entries. I estimate the full page might grow to a hundred or so. Compare that with the Glossary of spirituality-related terms quoted above, which is huuuuge! Lukas ^(T.|@) 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep—I think a thematic organization would work better than an alphabetical organization, but either way, the article should stay. --Macrakis 03:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep—It's a good resource. Ideally, it would have both an alphabetical and a thematic order (repetition, inversion, logic, trope, scheme, etc.)DigitalMedievalist 03:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be a good way of organizing articles on rhetoric terms. --Carnildo 07:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep: and adjust the focus so that the list also includes terms and concepts from the intersections of rhetoric and writing studies, rhetoric and communications studies, rhetoric and speech, visual rhetoric, etc. If this were only a list of "pure" rhetorical terms, it is duplicating an extensive existing website, which though not a wiki, is still the primary online resource and likely to remain so. The value of a wikipedia entry to me would be the ways that contributors can help expand our sense of / understanding of "rhetoric." This unsigned comment was added by new anonymous IP user 216.188.244.155 at 14:49, 25 January 2006. Moved into sequence by Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Mo0[talk] 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.

Sub-trivia WP:NOT a collection of random stuff. Where to next List of streets in Paris named after trees? --Doc ^ask? 15:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC) -Doc ^ask? 15:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as listcruft. Ifnord 15:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - what the fuck? This is an important part of the D.C. street naming system - east-west lettered streets, north-south numbered streets, and diagonal state avenues. We already have articles on eight of them, and each one is major enough for an article. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 15:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If this is so important, then by all means write an article on it, and tell us why. But a trivia list, without commentry does not belong in an encyclopedia. --Doc ^ask? 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, what the fuck? This serves to provide links to the articles on the streets. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment If that's all it's for, a category is probably a better idea. But are there really enough notable streets in Washington to warrant one? Robin Johnson 15:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment There already is Category:Streets in Washington, D.C. which is one reason this list is unnecessary.

merge into article about DC. Are there really avenues named after all 50 states? Seems silly to make a list for that in that case, might as well redirect to list of US states.--Kalsermar 15:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there is one named after each state. Are you going to add a link to each avenue on U.S. state? If not, the redirect would be useless. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 15:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Changing vote to Delete, having read the discussion I agree wholeheartedly on the use of categories in this case. Also, just a sentence or two in the DC article saying there is an avenue for every state in the Union is sufficient with perhaps links to the 2 or 3 truly notable ones (Pennsylvania comes to mind of course)--Kalsermar 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Those that have articles can go in a category or streets in DC. -R. fiend 16:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep A legitimate almanac style entry. Far from being random it organises the entries concerning an important aspect of the nomemclature of the capital of a major country. CalJW 16:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Care to explain your reasoning? howch e ng {chat} 07:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge, but i don't know where to. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Every state in the union has a road named after it in DC, and the better part of them are not notable. Notable streets and circles in Washington are already properly categorized. This list adds no more value to the encyclopedia than would a list of lettered street names. - choster 17:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Are we also going to have East-west streets in Washington, D.C. named after letters of the alphabet? How about Streets in Philadelphia named after trees? This is pointless list making. The fact that every state has a diagonal avenue is already mentioned in the Washington, D.C. article. Plus there is Category:Streets in Washington, D.C. There is also Geography of Washington, D.C. which discusses in detail Washington's street layout and how streets are named. A side note: the list says Columbia Road was named after the District of Columbia. Is this true? Could it not have been named for the historical Columbia just as D.C. was? Don't know the answer to that one. -- D.M. ^(talk) 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Category is sufficient. --Ajdz 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, indiscriminate collection of information. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Please learn to use categories. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The category is just fine and you can just replace the links in Washington, D.C. and Geography of Washington, D.C. to go to the category instead. howch e ng {chat} 00:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. — Dan | talk 01:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Care to explain your reasoning? howch e ng {chat} 07:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
keep. // paroxysm (n) 03:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Care to explain your reasoning? howch e ng {chat} 07:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. What categories are for. --Calton | Talk 04:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is what categories are for; the list is simply a list created just for the sake of having a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 12:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The fact that there's a street from each of the 50 states doesn't need its own article. Other than the naming trivia, there's no reason to limit such a list to those 50 states, but expanding it to List of Streets in Washington is nothing I want to be responsible for. And as a collection of links, Category:Streets in Washington, D.C. does a nice job. ×Meegs 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a "list of streets in washington". its a list of streets named after U.S. states. Making it a category would be wrong because its not a category of ALL streets in D.C., but rather just the ones named after states. Placing this into a category without an article is pointless. --Timecop 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but I think limiting a category or list to this naming scheme is not useful. ×Meegs 03:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Use categories. -Rebelguys2 03:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete this is better suited for categories. And is a little too obsucure for a list of its own.Gateman1997 20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Speedy Keep. SPUI's contributions are of unparallelled quality and this article is no different. This is an excellent encyclopaedic piece and must NOT be deleted. --Timecop 01:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep, per Timecop. incog 01:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - SPUI is right. Whatever he says. -- Femmina 01:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Note: the above 3 votes are all made by trolls. -R. fiend 05:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment - mod parent down. link goes to goatse. last time I checked I was an human. -- Femmina 08:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep - Sure, categories work for things like YTMND pages, or pokemon. But this is of ENCYLOPEADIC QUALITY. Quite a few of these roads are mentioned in my World Book '94. Jmax- 11:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good article, I has value and notability. --Depakote 11:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Note to closer - the last five voters are all connected with GNAA trolls --Doc ^ask? 12:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How is this relevant? Their opinions are just as valid, and they're clearly not trolling here. // paroxysm (n) 16:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course they're trolling here. Should be obvious to anyone. -R. fiend 16:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Don't accuse people of trollhood if they disagree with you. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 22:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I accuse them of trolling because they're trolls. And anyone who says "SPUI's contributions are of unparallelled quality" is a troll. Or a moron. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, because I'm such a nice guy. -R. fiend 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have been totally civil while on wikipedia; Please do not call me names and insinuate otherwise. I have done my best part to contribute to wikipedia all that I can, despite my hurdles Jmax- 02:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

R. fiend, you are way out of line. WP:CIVIL ℬastique 13:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep - State-named avenues are a distinctive feature of Washington DC, and of symbolic significance because it is the nation's capitol. Which states are included and which are not, is the sort of civics question people in the U.S. might be curious about. The information is clearly factual and verifiable. Category:lists shows many lists that seem far less worthy than the list under discussion, but taken as a whole our large collection of lists is a particularly valuable resource and a distinctive feature unique to Wikipedia. In my opinion, lists should always be given the benefit of the doubt.--agr 15:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: all 50 states have a street and are included in the list. ×Meegs 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

True, but two, Ohio and California are not major avenues. Perhaps the distinction needs to be make clearer in the article but that is a cleanup question. Another advantage of the list format is that as new roads get their own articles, they are automatically linked. I'm not saying an article format might not be a better way to treat this subject, but if so let someone write it and redirect the list. We shouldn't be wasting people's time (and discouraging valuable editors) by arguing about harmless lists.--agr 16:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Washington doesn't have an Avenue. At all. I swear. There's a Washington Circle, but given that George Washington's statue adorns it pretty much precludes it from being named for the state. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 22:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, having this article is just like having an article List of numbered streets in Manhattan, which has the contents "1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th..." all the way up to 100 and whatever, and, when told that it's completely pointless, arguing that "it's significant that the east-west streets in Manhattan are numbered, we need this article so everyone knows that." Just mention in the DC article that there's a street for each state (which I bet it already does) and those that are significant enough to have article can be in the Streets of DC category. It's appallingly simple. -R. fiend 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. If a street is worth an article, which many are, then a any conglomeration is worth a list. Why so delete-happy? Someone did a lot of hard work for this. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 21:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- So by that argument, if, say Broadway is worth an article, then we should have a List of streets in New York State, because some of them will have articles. And no one did any hard work on this. It's a very simple list. -R. fiend 22:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  - I do not agree that your logic is entirely correct. Someone was doing a lot of work on it (but the animosity toward a worthwhile contributor here seems to have gotten rid of him), there probably should be a list of numbered Avenues in New York, and there's no reason to delete listy articles out of hand. This one is more than a little useful and Wikipedia can handle it. And putting rebuttals to every single "Keep" vote, especially from those of us who have been here a while, is not going to bring anyone over to your side of the argument. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, and no, I do not care to explain my reasoning. Mike H. That's hot 22:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, since this is a discussion and not a vote, your contribution may well be ignored.--Doc ^ask? 23:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? I thought it was a vote. Hense its presence at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - ℬastique 13:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you thought wrong. I quote: 'Articles for Deletion (formerly Votes for deletion) is where Wikipedians discuss whether articles should be deleted. Items sent here usually wait five days or so while debate takes place ...' (emphasis added). Statements that do not contribute to the discussion or debate have no value. --Doc ^ask? 14:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. A category could not have the red links to show which streets still need articles. - SimonP 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- A useful article would be Notable streets of Washington, D.C. or State-named Avenues in Washington D.C. that establishes why these streets are interesting for anything other than a common characteristic of their name. I work just off Maryland Avenue and I have to tell you, Maryland Avenue is not notable. This is indiscriminate, it is a list for the sake of having a list, like List of sports teams with singular team names or List of buildings with their own ZIP code or [[List of world leaders mentioned on Family Guy]].-choster 02:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Categories are better suited for this kind of thing. Streets and avenues in all cities are named following a pattern after all, that's an inherent part of city planning. It seems that the majority of the avenues in this list are notable because they follow this particular pattern, not the other way around. I support articles on individual avenues/streets that are notable, but this particular brand of "notability by association" is pushing it a bit too far IMHO. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 02:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. per SimonP. --James S. 04:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 17:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ludvig Strigeus

The subject of this article is the original developer of three reasonably famous pieces of software that have their own Wikipedia articles: MTorrent, ScummVM and OpenTTD, so I've no idea how it was ever deleted in the first place. This item has spent nearly two weeks moldering on Wikipedia:Deletion review and they don't seem to be that keen to keep it deleted so it's time to give it another go.

first nomination is here
Obvious keep, nomination only to keep the process wonks happy. ---Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
keep as author of notable software. Page needs a tidy though, have started... --Oscarthecat 12:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be a notable software developer. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. PJM 12:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - notable if those pieces of software are. Robin Johnson 13:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep me no process wonk.--MONGO 13:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 14:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. Latinus 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
One project or four projects, he's still below my understanding of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. He's worked on some original projects but so have many professionals. In my opinion, he fails the "average professor test". Delete. Rossami (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 17:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacDermot Roe

I can't convince myself that this is actually notable, plus it seems to consist mainly of original research. Ben W Bell 12:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Normally I would say Delete per WP:Notability and WP:NOR. But I sort of like this article (and the website). "Do not delete without a good reason" comes to mind. AvB ÷ talk 14:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Articles on clans and families can be notable; this one is just so, IMO. BrianSmithson 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable Irish clann. Dlyons493 Talk 20:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep No apparent reason to delete this. D e nni ☯ 00:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. Notable and historically prominent Irish sept. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough and looks a decent article. Rhion 09:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 10:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Majeeka

Slang term, no established use when doing google searches etc Oscarthecat 08:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Only contribution of Sdirl01 (talk · contribs), likely attack or joke page. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 09:07Z
Delete as unverifiable. Robin Johnson 11:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Quarl. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Man Flu

not encyclopediatic and even if it was, it should be in wikitionaryWhere (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- Francs 2000 16:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd vote Delete if I weren't nearly dying from this terrible respiratory illness. Well, I guess I just did, anyway. --Christofurio 16:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as neologism. Ifnord 16:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
delete - Probaly just the The Man Show with Snot MNewnham 18:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as makeup. Latinus 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I have heard this phrase being used, so it's not fictional at least. I can't see how it could be made encyclopedic though. exolon 00:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manky

dicdef Melaen 18:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Punkmorten 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Eddie.willers 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Melaen. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:28Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Segali

Subject has no notability aside from the fact that Nintendo's mascot Mario is named for him. Aside from that one fact, he is an average American businessman. Will we ever see a fleshed-out biography on this guy? And would anyone care? — BrianSmithson 19:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. BrianSmithson 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Mario. howch e ng {chat} 00:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Mario. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:49Z
Delete per nom. Lord Falcon 02:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- The revelevant info is already in the Mario article. The point about nobody caring was about this guy's biography and career. People who get their own Wikipedia articles usually have something in their biography that is worth noting, not just a mildly interesting fact that is a bit of trivia at the most. — BrianSmithson 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Mario. --Joshk 10:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Mario. --Dynamite Eleven 21:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Keep Mario Segali as a separate article. Although he has undoubtedly achieved other things, this was an event in his life and should remain. --Kelestar, 29/01/2006, 22:12 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 speedily deleted - the authors conducted a linkspam campaign in several articles, which leads me to believe this is a bad-faith piece of junk that should go speedily. FCYTravis 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Malament

I originally tagged this as CSD A7, but there is an assertion of notability so I'm moving it to AFD. The article's assertions of notability are unreferenced and unverifiable by Google. --Muchness 23:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a colleague of Matt's. While he isn't as well known as say a Michael Porter, he is deinfitely a leading strategic thinker. He's fairly humble, so he won't jump into this fray, but I think to delete his page would be a black mark on Wikipedia. 00:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC) S. Wootton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.14.172 (talk • contribs)
~~Weak keep/delete if not cleaned up~~ - Someone with more information might be able to comment on whether winning the "It's Academic Super Bowl" is more than a local phenomenon. If it is, I guess that's weak grounds for notability. However, the rest is entirely unencyclopedic (captained the varsity football team? Yeah, him and 100,000 other people) or unverified puffery - "foremost strategic thinkers for Fortune 500," yadda yadda - so if that can't be verified by reliable sources, then delete as non-notable. FCYTravis 00:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You may think it is a local phenomenon, but in fact it is a national tournament that is known by high school teachers coast-to-coast, and the longest running tv quiz show in the world, according to guinness records. I'd say there are much less-notable events currently on Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.202.106.114 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment - The "famed Domus Sphere" gets all of zero, count them zero Google hits. This may be a hoax, in which case I vote speedy delete. FCYTravis 00:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment Probably b/c if you Google "famed Domus Sphere" in quotes. No one refers to it in general as the "famed Domus Sphere".
    - OK, a search on just-plain "Domus Sphere" gets all of zero, count them zero Google hits. (I'm surprised Google hasn't indexed this discussion yet...) Dpbsmith (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Changing my vote to speedy delete as vanity - I'd expect a "leading strategic thinker" to get some Google hits that aren't related to his high school. There are none. FCYTravis 00:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No hits in Google Books. No hits in Google Scholar. "One of the foremost thinkers in the field of strategic planning and vision" really should get at least a mention in there, at least in a note or reference. P. S. "Domus sphere" also gets no hits in either Google Books or Google Schola. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Probable hoax. Googling the allegedly famed "Domus Sphere" produces exactly no results. - Jaysus Chris 02:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Six Google hits for "Matt Malament" and not all him suggests we are being a bit hasty in assuming any notability. D e nni ☯ 02:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN/vanity. While wishing him well in his career, unless and until that career generates substantial notice from within or without his field, this ought to remain unmentioned along with the thousands of other management guru hopefuls. The NYSE will probably withstand the omission.--cjllw | TALK 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per cjllw. Stifle 11:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment I was trying to see whether anything in the article was verifiable. Rather to my surprise, a search in www.anywho.com and www.switchboard.com for anyone with the surname "Malament" in the entire State of Georgia yields no hits. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Ever heard of an unlisted address?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.202.106.114 (talk • contribs) .
Comment 65.202.106.114, do not attempt to edit this page in any way that would distort the general content of the discussion. It is considered very rude to edit anyone else's comments. If you are the same person as User:Dmmx3 and find that the discussion is becoming embarrasing or unpleasant, then log in here as Dmmx3, say so, and request that the article be deleted and the discussion terminated early. Our due process requires that the discussion must stay open for at least five days, but in this case and given the obvious consensus to delete, I'd honor a request by Dmmx3 for speedy deletion if nobody objects. It's not nice to insert bogus articles into Wikipedia but it's not a big deal, it happens a lot. You pulled a dumb stunt, you got caught, it happens. We'd still welcome any serious contributions to WIkipedia you feel like making Dpbsmith (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment How has no one else heard of this guy? Or the Dome Sphere? What, is Google the be-all-end-all of well-known people? Get out and read a book, then maybe you'll knwo who this guy is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.202.106.114 (talk • contribs) .
- If you cite a book (title, author, ISBN number) that provides verifiable evidence of the facts mentioned in the article not only will I read it, but if it confirms Matt Malament's notability I will change my vote to "keep." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Introduction to Decision Analysis by David C. Skinner. ISBN 0-9647938-3. Check out the chapter on using simulation to solve decision problems.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.202.106.114 (talk • contribs) .
    - Unless the've changed something ISBNs consist of 10 digits, that one only has 9. --pgk^(talk) 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      - The ISBN for the cited book is ISBN 0964793830 --Muchness 22:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment - There's no entry for "Malament, Matt" or "Domus sphere" in the book's index. --Muchness 22:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      - Comment Try reading the book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.202.106.114 (talk • contribs) .
Comment Dpbsmith is a huge tool who has nothing better to do but edit wikipedia conversations as some weird pseudo power trip - virtual might I add and nothing more —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.4.181.210 (talk • contribs) .
Delete, as per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE i dont understand why everyone wants to delete this. mr malament may not be albert einstein, but his contributions to biz strategy are fairly widely recognized, and is a giant in the field among his peers. everything in the article checks out, is completely factually accurate. this is more than worthwhile. also, the ultimate championship of the longest running quiz show is pretty significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmmx3 (talk • contribs) 27 January 2006
- Well, help us verify that everything in the article checks out. The big problem is that the article presently cites no sources at all. WP:V specifically says that the burden is on the contributor to provide those citations. We try to do due diligence to make sure we don't overlook the obvious, but it's not our job to provide verification, it's the job of the article contributors. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment. It's quite evident that Matt and Daniel M. Maggin (also up for deletion, and more than likely one and the same as User Dmmx3 (talk · contribs) to judge by the contribs) are simply a couple of mates having a go. I don't actually doubt the veracity of the biographical details provided for either; but when stripped of the unsupportable grandiose claims, they don't amount to encyclopaedic notability or even notoriety any which way you slice it. If truly a "giant in the field" other than in his own lunchtime, there would be commentary and recognition of the same from a variety of independent notable sources — but these are completey lacking. Being an employee of, or a consultant to, Fortune500 companies is not an automatic qualifier for mention here.--cjllw | TALK 03:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment. I agree. Further, 69.180.14.172 has defended both articles against deletion, but signed different names ("S. Wootton" here, "Dean Kang" there). Strikes me as suspicious. Hbackman 03:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew McMullen

Non-notable. Rmhermen 15:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. BrianSmithson 20:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
comment it would be useful if we could be a little more explicite than "Non-notable". Why is he non notable? Can anything be done to the article to make it more notable? etc... Jcuk 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable vanity biography. He's just not important. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:15Z
Delete. Non-notable in this case tends to refer to someone who does not meet the criteria at WP:BIO. However I do strongly encourage people to come up with better reasons for deletion. Stifle 12:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete under my Proquest/Newsbank test. More was written about the 20 year old carrier of the Olympic torch in California. Calwatch 04:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maxwell Howig

Unverifiable; Google returns no hits. Probable hoax. --Muchness 21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nom. --Muchness 21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as strong candidate for WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 21:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -Amazon10x 21:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Probable hoax, unverified Avi 21:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - probable hoax. --Hurricane111 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom as unverifiable and likely.... bollocks. --Lockley 23:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 01:48Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Smith (aviator)

Non-notable aviator and WP:NOT a memorial, Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Avi 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Gazpacho 02:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete obituary. Ruby 02:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Crunch 03:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. Dbtfz 03:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Blnguyen 03:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:31Z
Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. JIP | Talk 10:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Robin Johnson 11:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. —This user has left wikipedia 12:19 2006-01-23
Delete. Sad to hear about the accident, but nom is right. BrianSmithson 19:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micro icons

Collectible toy with no claim to notability. 114 hits. Is this encyclopedic?-- Perfecto 04:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Delete --Perfecto 04:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, they are not notable enough. JIP | Talk 10:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanity Spam. —This user has left wikipedia 12:35 2006-01-23
Delete for reasons above. PJM 12:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mushin ^talk 17:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom as NN. --Lockley 20:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable. Latinus 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 03:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 20:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moderexia

Valid Entry This is a medical term given to both men and women who are at the early stages of an eating disorder. Even though this stage in eating disorders is typically short and not widely mentioned, it doesn't refute the fact that it does exist. Jack Thomas 22:41, 53 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Article cites no sources and Google Test returns nothing. Colby Peterson 17:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Deskana (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete: Not only is the article patent nonsense and NPOV, it's really bad medical advice. Justin Eiler 17:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete: Patent Nonsense. Arviragus 18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Valid Entry Although I am unable to find a source, I do find this actually pretty accurate. (Patrick).
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:19Z
Delete as exceptionally horrible. I know Wikipedia is not a doctor, but really... Stifle 12:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Valid Entry I know a couple doctors and they all have told me that they use this term in their daily common practice.
Delete. See WP:V. "I know a couple doctors" is not verification. Chick Bowen 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: All three "valid entry" votes are spoofed, come from anonymous IP edits, and were inserted out of sequence. User:Jack Thomas doesn't exist, the two other unsigned votes come from the same IP and were added immediately one after the other. Lukas ^(T.|@) 10:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Business ethics. Owen× ☎ 17:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Business Ethics

Delete. This article is a student essay on a topic already covered by a more extensive article at Wikipedia. It violates the principle of "no original material". It is not properly referenced. It is not wikified (text dump). It is poorly written (which suggests that it as least not plagiarism from a reputable source). The material is not sufficiently valuable to consider a merger with the real Wikipedia article. The user who contributed this has only ever made one contribution to Wikipedia. Caravaca 06:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as original research. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:35Z
Delete and redirect to Business ethics. KrazyCaley 09:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Modern Business Ethics isn't really a recognized phrase or title IMHO, because most business ethics is modern anyway. RU sure you want a redirect? Caravaca 16:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

True, someone probably won't come to Wikipedia and look for "modern business ethics," but if they do, they're probably looking for the content found in Business ethics, so I don't see a problem with a redirect, just in case. At least one person, however misinformed, thought that it might be distinct from regular Business ethics, and there isn't really much harm in just redirecting. KrazyCaley 17:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Business Ethics. —This user has left wikipedia 12:51 2006-01-23

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MTCC

non notable company Melaen 19:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A google search did not turn up any appreciable results. Arviragus 19:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, per nom. --DelftUser 20:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:29Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with signal analysis. --D e ath phoenix 14:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multi-scale signal analysis

dicdef Melaen 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is a mathematical topic that can be expanded upon. From a theoretical perspective, it is a statistical area of study (stochastics). Certain scientists also use this technique. I believe it should be listed as a math-stub and hopefully a person with the appropriate expertise will be able to write more about it. Arviragus 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Signal analysis, which itself could use some help. --Lockley 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge as per Lockley Dlyons493 Talk 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 13:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muyangguniang

A fictional city. Doesn't look like an encyclopedic subject to me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, its vanity, a city some kid created in Sim City 3000. I put a speedy template on it, but he keeps removing it. --BadSeed 13:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per BadSeed. Robin Johnson 13:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, though it could be rewritten in a neutral fashion. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:25, Jan. 29, 2006

[edit] National homebuyers

~~While this is a new page, it seems to be a NN company. Alexa rank of 355,289. I am unsure as to whether this should be deleted, or expanded. What do you think?~~ Reads like an ad. Kareeser|^Talk! 17:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you nominating it for deletion or not? AFAICT your discussion belongs to its talk page, not here. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for the deletion procedure. --Perfecto 17:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
If it reads like an ad, then it just might need to be cleaned up. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --Perfecto 17:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Belongs in the Yellow Pages, not in an encyclopedia. Weregerbil 18:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable small business.Obina 23:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) [[2006-01-24]

this is supposed to be an introduction to a new business practice as opposed to an advertisement. It will be cleaned to read appropriately.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neechaa

nn volleyball variant invented by nn people Hirudo 16:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, WP:NOT things made up in school one day. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough (and not encyclopaedic). Latinus 21:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable. No Google hits. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:17Z
Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle 12:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newage Tactics

NN game. – Ezeu 09:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, since it looks very non-notable. 25 unique google hits for a web-based game isn't very good. - Bobet 13:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Bobet. BrianSmithson 20:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable software. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 03:31Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonchalantism

Neologism with very few Google hits Bjones 00:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. nn "ism." Dbtfz 00:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete no assertion of third party recognition of this term. Ruby 00:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable neologism. Makemi 00:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete nonsense, really Avi 02:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, obviously HasNoClue 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nonsense.Blnguyen 03:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable/unverifiable. By the way, this article is about an "apathetic movement", not the name of the movement, so this article is not about a neologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:48Z
Delete per nom. Robin Johnson 10:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. —This user has left wikipedia 12:16 2006-01-23
Delete per nom, google says "no". Mushin ^talk 13:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination, nn epitome. AvB ÷ talk 13:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as neologism. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 14:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as Neologism. Arviragus 18:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete neologism --M @th wiz 2020 20:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nurdle

Neologism in the style of Lewis Carroll, it seems. Google turns up around 500 pages with "Nurdle", none relating to the slang phrase. Nurdle & toothpaste turns up a whopping 2 results. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 20:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom.Obina 20:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 21:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-group. Mushroom 14:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off the ground

Modify vote to Speedy Delete - non notable - For same reasons as related article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Meigh - Hiberniantears 16:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Latinus 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a random school theatre group. I wish them all the best, but would they appear in the Encyclopedia Britannica? I think not. Stifle 12:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest Official Student Publication

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to The Brunswickan. TimBentley 18:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to The Brunswickan (see below). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:11Z
Delete. I'm not comfortable with the redirect, since it suggests that the statement is true, whereas it is in fact only true in Canada. Chick Bowen 02:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Since it is their tagline it does not merit an article. Vegaswikian 07:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't merit own article; not useful, ambiguous as redirect. I took the liberty of merging the material into the The Brunswickan article without turning it into a redirect. Grammatically the article merely says the paper is the "oldest official student publication" on campus. Whether this is what was meant, I don't know, but there's no verification that this is the oldest paper at U of NB, let alone the world. NickelShoe 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Chick Bowen, Vegaswikian, NickelShoe. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-27 22:55Z
Delete --Dogbreathcanada 07:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omnimodus exemples

No google hits, sole contributor is User:OmnimodusExemples - suspected advertising. Robin Johnson 14:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - a religious/philosophical movement admitting to "a small following", content borders on WP:BALLS. And the Latin is just horrible too. Lukas 14:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nothing notable here James084 14:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. BrianSmithson 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable religious or life philosophy with a small following. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 03:22Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One World - Many Cultures

What you plan to do is great. Unfortunately I have to ask you to come back when you're verifiable.-- Perfecto 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Perfecto 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please clear the related mentions in other articles as well. --Perfecto 04:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP not a crystal ball, etc. Ruby 04:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Rhobite 04:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Is this unrelated to the book ? -- Astrokey44|talk 05:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Unrelated as far as I can tell -- the book was written in 2003; this project just formed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:59Z
Delete. Caravaca 07:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:58Z
Delete. There really needs to be some sort of script that will flag articles that use syntax like "What (article topic) will do/attempt/etc." KrazyCaley 09:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Robin Johnson 11:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanity project. —This user has left wikipedia 12:39 2006-01-23
Delete as non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mushin ^talk 18:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Ed g2s as nn-vanity —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 01:20Z

[edit] Oztripping

Non-notable website. LordViD 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. -Ikkyu2 21:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable (and not encyclopaedic). Latinus 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete db-club Avi 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 10:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P a r a s i t e

non-notable game mod Drdisque 05:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:43Z
Delete, aren't all game mods non-notable? Awful title too. JIP | Talk 10:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, we have three whole categories of them.... —Cryptic (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. There are a few notable game mods. Counter-Strike probably being the most notable. But it's definitely a short list. --Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as fancruft-ish // If I had a nickel for every user-created-map to a game. —This user has left wikipedia 12:45 2006-01-23
Delete per Quarl. Anyway, why game mods are that notable to have an article on its own. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Achille. Sycthos ^Talk 20:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Compu te r Jo e 21:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howch e ng {chat} 00:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Schulz

un-notable software developper. Melaen 19:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. No claim of notability is made. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per WP:BIO - non-notability of subject. (aeropagitica) 21:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 21:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penn-Can Mall

New hights of non-notability BadSeed 12:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Some shopping malls have historical, architectural or other merit worth noting. This one does not appear to be one of those shopping malls. Crunch 12:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
delete --Ter e nc e Ong 12:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete angelfire historial? —This user has left wikipedia 13:02 2006-01-23
Delete per nom. Avi 13:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The external link (which is also Ghit#1) is a guy's Lycos web page with some blurry pictures. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 03:29Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Jackson Hole

~~Spam. Esprit15d 15:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)~~ It was spam, then it was radically edited, now it's just non-notable. Still delete.--Esprit15d 16:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not spam! great newspaper in Jackson, Wyoming. Keep it. Receives national attention all the time, great blog site and online paper.
Keep. The article is poor now but that's cause for a cleanup tag, not a AfD. Google hits? Over 27,000. Ifnord 16:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, free entertainment weeklies are rarely notable. If someone wants to edit it between now and the close of this AfD to indicate what makes it stand out from the rest, then I may change my vote. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
'Delete' I'm sure its staff thinks it's awesome, but free pubs are a dime a dozen, and encyclopedic is not a term that springs to mind in describing them. D e nni ☯ 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment I went searching for some real information. Couldn't come up with any, but I was amused by this. Incidentally, I don't sheer number of google hits is useful for a media source, as you'll see if you start looking through them. Chick Bowen 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for this. Case closed.--Esprit15d 20:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  - "I don't think" was, of course, what I meant to say. Chick Bowen 01:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 07:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poison Control

Punk band which has not released an album and is not mentioned on the homepage of its record label. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball nor does this band appear at all notable. ThreeAnswers 03:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete nn band. Ruby 03:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete db-band Avi 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish quotes

delete only a quotation. Melaen 20:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Latinus 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Some kind editor may want to confirm it's on wiki quotes. Obina 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I've copied it to wikiquotes. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 03:15Z

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progressiva

Delete. Non-notable conlang. Self-referencing on a few other internet sites. No truly independent references. -Gavin 05:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
~~Abstain~~. Language seems to be somehow related to Anglo-Romance. Frankly, I don't know enough about this to give a well-motivated opinion. I'd like to hear more arguments pro and contra before I finally decide to vote. Perhaps it would be an idea to merge this into an article about Esperantids? —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The only references I could find (in English or Italian) describe it as an attempt or incomplete. I don't think it's a fully developed conlang, which makes it rather unverifiable at the very least. Chick Bowen 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete provisionally. Nothing on the page makes it seem notable, and the only relevant ghits for "progressiva language" are this page and the langmaker page, both created by the language creator. If I saw good arguments for its notability, I could change my vote. DenisMoskowitz 03:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per DenisMoskowitz. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 09:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ProjectVIBE Internet Radio

Delete Advertisement for a web radio station that does not seem notable. Uucp 22:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, ad.--cjllw | TALK 00:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 11:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. It has been argued that the subject of the article is notable, but the article was too poor (substub/advertising). The deletion is therefore without prejudice against a better article, and I will let the redlinks stay.

[edit] Pronto Software

Hardly any content, looks like advertisment. Unless someone can verify notability as defined in WP:CORP, delete. S.K. 18:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The company has been published in a third-party news service, and is hence notable as defined in WP:CORP, Section 1, Subheading 1. Link: Supply Review Article. Arviragus 19:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Hmm, the example you gave looks like a case of Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself which are excluded. But then, it probably is a matter of discussion. S.K. 19:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as substub advert. Stifle 12:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 20:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pterippi

neologism Melaen 17:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a reasonable keep, though as it stands, this is more a dicdef than an article. D e nni ☯ 01:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. All Ghits are for Wikipedia mirrors of an old version of Pegasus, which has had that sentence removed (it must have only been in the article for a short time), and an Everything2 article. If it were verifiable (which I doubt) I would say merge with Pegasus. (Not a neologism.) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:17Z
OMG, that's gotta be the most annoying template message ever, complete with a cutesy cartoon character. I want to delete it. The article is a mild delete in itself. --Agamemnon2 06:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is fishy. 212 Google hits for this word, many of them re-iterations of this same phrasing. 0 Google Book Search hits. 0 Google Scholar Hits. Even if verifiable, this would be a dicdef or candidate for mention at Pegasus. Fictional creatures don't require species. --Lockley 07:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. The notion that this term comes from Greek mythology, though stated elsewhere on the internet, is ridiculous. There's no such Greek word, and if there were "Pterippi" wouldn't be the plural anyway--the plural of hippos is hippoi. Chick Bowen 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom 15:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpling

Slang protologism. Google turns up other meanings that might make a proper article, but the current content is hardly encyclopedic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not Urbandictionary. Robin Johnson 13:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Naughty schoolboys having a giggle. Zarquon 13:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. nn nn nn. AvB ÷ talk 13:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 13:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per Perfecto's suggestion. FCYTravis 04:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pweeta

Non-notable joke organization. 430 Googles. FCYTravis 03:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete possible hoax. Ruby 03:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-existent organization created for a joke. The anti-animal rights movement is covered in more than enough detail already at Animal rights under criticism. Note that the page probably isn't a hoax, but the organization itself is. Peyna 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Funny, but non-notable (whether it's real or not). Dbtfz 04:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-club. --Perfecto 04:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R. D. Townsend

headmaster, probably unencyclopedic Melaen 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

delete while obviously a seriously good headmaster, considering his history, doesn't seem to have done anything else. MNewnham 18:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep and expand. A seriously good headmaster is notable in his profession - if he'd been the captain of three major football clubs he wouldn't be on Afd. Dlyons493 Talk 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Townsend is mentioned on the Sydney Grammar School page and there is no other reason for keeping a separate biography provided by the author. Why is this headmaster any more or less notable than any other? An objective reason is required and more substance to make the article work. Otherwise, Mr Townsend may as well be relegated to a footnote in the history of the schools at which he taught. (aeropagitica) 21:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Being a headmaster, no matter how good, does not confer notability. Will information on this person be sought 50 years hence? I think not. (And too bad if it will; there's certainly none given in this article.) D e nni ☯ 01:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The only question in my mind for a stub this short is whether it's expandable (the question raised by Dlyons493). I've done my best to find some stuff out about this guy and come up blank. It's not an article as it stands, and it probably can't be expanded in line with WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:CITE. Chick Bowen 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howch e ng {chat} 00:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow in technicolor

Band not meeting WP:MUSIC. Excerpts: formed November 2004 (...) Rainbow in Technicolor recently released their 2nd official demo. Punkmorten 19:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD A7: nn-band. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per nom. (aeropagitica) 21:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramenboy

nn - cf spoomusic.com Avi 05:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:36Z
Delete as above. —This user has left wikipedia 12:50 2006-01-23
Delete per Quarl. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Of far too little interest to justify a wikipage, plus the title is likely to attract many unrelated queries Alex Bartho 14:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 14:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds? PJM 15:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Redundant information fouund in the Fullmetal Alchemist article and the Asian Kung-fu Generation article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Esprit15d (talk • contribs)
Delete per Esprit15d. PJM 15:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite as Disambig. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:02Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ReZound

Non-notable -Nv8200p talk 03:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep. It sure has good google presence. I have merged and redirected from Rezound--Ezeu 05:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. Rank 4608 on Debian popcon. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 09:05Z
Keep. Close enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrazyCaley (talk • contribs)
Weak keep Had it been a Windows program it would have been delete... seems hard to delete *nix anything. —This user has left wikipedia 12:34 2006-01-23
Weak Keep. Seems notable. PJM 12:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. if {this sourceforge project with high googlebility} != {"Wikipedia article" && {this AfD == "delete"}} return {WP:BIAS} --Ezeu 13:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:43, Jan. 29, 2006

[edit] Rimini Street (2nd nomination)

Previously deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rimini Street), but rewritten in a manner enough different that it probably doesn't qualify as a speedy. I'd say delete, as it doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP. It's just a small startup like thousands of others. -R. fiend 16:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is the second time I've voted keep on this + two keep votes for Seth Ravin. Given the amount of votes we have had concerning the life and times of Seth Ravin, I have come to believe that Seth Ravin is the most important businessman in the world, perhaps since business was invented. No start-up is small if Seth Ravin did the starting up. Life takes on new meaning when Seth Ravin is in the picture. Are there are other companies that Seth Ravin was involved with that are not yet covered here? Many of us now feel that we need articles on everything that Seth Ravin has ever touched. I wish I lived on Rimini Street with Seth Ravin. Thanks for letting me vote again to keep Seth Ravin. I feel all warm and tingly. Don't you? -- JJay 16:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Advertisement. CalJW 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Hirudo 16:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep,obviously. I wrote it myself so I know it isn't an ad. Even though this is an extremely new startup, it has already attracted enough independent media attention (including Forbes and eWeek) to satisfy WP:CORP, and numbers among its customers such heavy hitters as Toyota Financial Services, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, and Peregrine Systems. I'm shocked to see this renominated for no good reason. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, because there is no assertion how it would meet WP:CORP or any other notability standard. The article merely notes that it's a startup founded by the exodus of some employees, and that they are now buying up other companies. Companies get founded, and they sometimes buy others together with their customer base. That is common. Maybe come back in five years, when the dust has settled. Pilatus 18:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Pilatus, my friend, are you familiar with WP:CORP #1? "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. Excludes ads, reprints of press releases, op ed pieces and the like. There are three press references on the artice already, including one from eWeek and one from Forbes. One of them has as its main subject litigious-sounding noises made at the company by Siebel and the other has as its main subject the acquisition of an ERP/CRM company by Rimini Street. Thus the article passes WP:CORP #1 --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  - I did consult WP:CORP, and one article in Forbes and a short paragraph in eWeek doesn't pass the "non-trivial" bar and goes against the spirit of that guideline. You may disagree. Employee exoduses are not uncommon, as are corporate acquisitions. Once Rimini Street has extablished itself somewhat and gets its second round of funding we can look again, but now it really doesn't deserve more than a footnote. Pilatus 21:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Both articles are specifically about Rimini Street and are non-trivial in size and in coverage. This alone passes WP:CORP. Why would we need to know whether the company will thrive? This isn't a business directory, it's an encyclopedia and we write about what other people are writing about. As far as Forbes and sWeek, neither of them negligible sources, are concerned, that includes Rimini Street. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep- it DOES meet WP:CORP, but not having a customer base doesn't make me terribly enthusiastic about it -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- It has Toyota, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Peregrine Systems and Restoration Hardware, to name four large customers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Recently deleted article recreated. Not especially significant or notable startup. --kingboyk 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Pilatus. A lot of potential with some write-ups about said potential in notable publications. I don't think this meets WP:CORP. This is NOT a vote on Seth Ravin or on the business issue surrounding third party support for Siebel products in the wake of the Oracle acquisition. This is a vote solely on the Rimini Street article. Crunch 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete "2005 startup" automatically spells NONNOTABLE to me. D e nni ☯ 01:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as reposted material. It doesn't matter that it's been reworded, imo; consensus is that it doesn't belong on WP and repeated renomination until you get a keep result is ridiculous. Stifle 12:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It does matter. The CSD policy is very clear. It must be "substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject". Say what you will about Rimini Street, this is not a speedy delete and Tony has made a great effort to develop the article. -- JJay 14:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I've just added three more articles, one from Wall Street Journal. This company is easily satisfying WP:CORP now, although the original article on this subject didn't come close, so I think we'd need some exceptional arguments to delete at this stage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Tony. The fact of it having been previously deleted does not make it notable, per JJay's amusing and ingeniously self-referential reasoning, but the fact of it passing WP:CORP through significant media coverage does - even if I do think that at this stage it's "just another startup, just like all the rest". I still think nothing should be added to the 'pedia until at leasta year after it happens, to allow for proper perspective. The scrabble by companies to get on Wikipedia as part of their startup marketing program is a real concern to me. But Tony wrote this, and Tony has better things to do with his time than do other people's spamming for them, so in the end I'm trusting to his judgment re the company even if it looks to me like a close call. Possible merge to Seth Ravin as a compromise solution. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Have to agree with Pilatus here. This company is very new, not particularily large and does not have any great achievements. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. 2005 startup, with no customer base and no product(?), plus article reads like an advertisement. --timecop 02:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete advert. Jmax- 03:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. ➥the Epopt 23:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] River Thames Whale

Nice article, but unverifiable. I'm special 19:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well so far it's only been what I have been able to say, with other edits I was expected more verifiable info to come forward. But I will add links with info to it. Jamandell (d69) 19:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This debate was apparently not linked from anywhere, so I've added the template to the article and listed it to today's AfD listing. See below for my vote. Thryduulf 22:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

keep, the article is now substantial and well referenced and entirely verifiable. Thryduulf 22:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

keep are you kidding me? unverifiable? i saw this in the newspaper this morning. WriterFromAfar755 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Verifiable event - astonishing that this was anything other than a 'drop the dead donkey' story but there are many column inches in the UK press on this subject. (aeropagitica) 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep, obviously. Tonywalton | Talk 22:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep External links establishes that this has been covered by many good sources so I don't get the unverifiable claim... could be referenced better perhaps but that's not a reason for deletion. --W.marsh 22:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Now speedy kept by The Epopt. Could an admin close this entry, please? Tonywalton | Talk 23:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howch e ng {chat} 00:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockbot

Delete. Non-notable band. See also: Laura Thomas — Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 17:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 21:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom 15:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanchez Raful Sicard & Polanco

Advertisement for a law firm . The only thing missing is business hours and fax number, and it could be a Yellow Pages entry. Ezeu 02:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete Blatant Advertising Avi 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom and Avi. Ruby 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Blnguyen 03:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Advertising, no claim to notability, as per WP:CORP. (aeropagitica) 07:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable - no claim to notability. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:25Z
Speedy delete as non-notable company. Robin Johnson 11:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. —This user has left wikipedia 12:21 2006-01-23
Delete per nom. Mushin ^talk 13:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as vandalism. Mushroom 14:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schnitzelism

A "pseudo religion based on the culinary love of anything Schnitzel", ... made up in school one day. Delete. Lukas 14:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. I tagged it on NP patrol, but the creator removed the tag. Robin Johnson 14:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's against policy for the article's author to rv a speedy tag. Next time just restore it, if you like. PJM 14:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. per nom.--Esprit15d 14:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mangojuice 14:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, G3, silly vandalism. Tagged again. PJM 14:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sierra yankee 99

unencyclopedic Melaen 18:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - non notable... helicopter? John C PI 19:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is mentioned on the BBC Television series Traffic Police and its fame derrives from the aerial photography of car chases. Could be merged with an artice on the South Yorkshire Police force but there is no reason to give it a page all to itself. You may as well mention Quebec 99 for Gloucestershire/Avon & Somerset, a photo of which already exists to illustrate UK_police - otherwise non-notable. (aeropagitica) 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 11:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinister stranger

RuNESCAPE character, not encyclopedic Melaen 13:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete — nn Runescape character Kareeser|^Talk! 16:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN. BrianSmithson 20:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Slight merge to somewhere appropriate articles in Category:RuneScape. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:13Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smoky's Fine Cigars

Non-Notable store in Oak Hills; more relevant for the yellow pages Gopple 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CORP. Dbtfz 01:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above.Blnguyen 01:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete — per Dbtfz Kareeser|^Talk! 01:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete blatant advertising. Ruby 01:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Blatant Advertising Avi 02:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. non-notable store. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:46Z
Speedy delete as non-notable. Robin Johnson 10:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delte blatant advertising, non notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete spam. —This user has left wikipedia 12:16 2006-01-23
Speedy delete nn advertising. Mushin ^talk 13:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Advert, and NN. Brokenfrog 06:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smowz

dicdef Melaen 12:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete nn - neologism Avi 13:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn neologism Robin Johnson 13:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - neologism and dicdef. --Whouk (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - same as above --John C PI 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 21:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 03:26Z

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 23:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Society of the Seven

Google hasn't heard of it non notable fratcruft Dakota ~ ε 22:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nominator.--Dakota ~ ε 22:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. --W.marsh 23:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Secret societies are inherently unverifiable. howch e ng {chat} 00:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as too secret. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 01:40Z
Delete also probably recreation of deleted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Society of the Seven. Kusma (討論) 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. If an admin can check Secret Society of the Seven and see if it's the same, we may be able to speedy as a G4 repost. Stifle 11:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's close, but not identical. This new version claims it's one of three secret societies in North Carolina which is missing from the deleted versions. howch e ng {chat} 22:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete A well researched article regarding the Mystical Seven Society [26] in part, states: In 1884 the Virginia Mystics started two new temples, the Temple of the Sword and Shield at Davidson College, North Carolina and the Star of the South at the University of North Carolina. It is obvious that the name of the southern branch of the society had further evolved as the two new temples were commissioned as the Mystic Seven Fraternity and the Davidson Mystics took on the Greek name Alethia, meaning truth. A google search for "Alethia, University, Davidson" yields no results either, except for the citation noted, yet according to this apparently well researched article, this branch of "7" does/did exist. It is not unreasonable to assume that many secret organizations remain so purposefully, and have no written record, but are known colloquially.SuMadre 17:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Updated information: I located the university archives [27] for the Order of Gimghoul, which is referenced with the Society of the Seven in another Wiki article The League of Societies. Though I have personally heard of such, it is only anectdotal evidence. One would expect something as important as administration of a Trust would be referenced in the UNC Library exhibits. It should be noted that there are agreements with the Gorgon's Head Lodge noted (per League of Societies entry), but no reference whatsoever is made in regard to the ECU Society of Seven. Consequently, I have changed my vote from Keep to Delete. In light of these findings, it might be prudent to consider removing The League of Societies entry, and amending the Order of Gimghoul article as well. SuMadre 15:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsense - Lucky 6.9 04:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanking machine

Nonsense article. "They hurt. Alot." Zen611 04:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but deleting nonsense is utterly painless. - Lucky 6.9 04:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn neologism, nonsense - Lucky 6.9 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speef

Non-notable neologism. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 04:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

delete per nom -Drdisque 04:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Which means non-notable bye-bye. Our friend in "storm lake, iowa" needs to learn to use the shift key as well. :) - Lucky 6.9 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howch e ng {chat} 00:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spolek za staré Vrahovice

un*notable young peoples´club. Melaen 18:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. --DelftUser 20:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoomusic.com

Recording company with its very own myspace page. Article submitted by its founder. Fails WP:CORP (Fails WP:WEB, too, in case it applies to them.)-- Perfecto 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Perfecto 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn "label" Ruby 03:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom - and as an editorial comment, why anyone would want to name their company after Spoo is beyond me -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 03:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete pn - cf Ramenboy Avi 05:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
delete: No evidence of notability. Ombudsman 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable corporation & non-notable website. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:37Z
Delete un notable spammy and vanity:. —This user has left wikipedia 12:25 2006-01-23
Delete nn. Mushin ^talk 14:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Sue Anne 20:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable. Latinus 22:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete warpozio 08:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1/24/2006 from the contributor: I erased everything aside from the vital statistics that can be verified. If spoomusic.com is considered non-notable then we have to go through the list of independant record labels and delete a huge majority of them. Please consider that notability for an independant record label differs than a mainstream label. The funding usually isn't there but the listeners are. Spoomusic.com doesn't sell CDs, but gives the music away free, so there won't ever be a gold or platinum acknowledgement to base notability on... This is a progressive record label in that respect, and I thought it notable for this reason. But I even erased this information, just leaving vitals which can be confirmed through an Arizona government web site listed in the discussion section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.81.251 (talk • contribs)
- I agree with the contributor regarding List of independent record labels. However I believe the contributor confuses Wikipedia:Verifiability with Wikt:Verifiability (c.f. Wikipedia:Notability/Essay). Since "record label" directly establishes notability for musicians which indirectly establishes notability for songs, thousands of unverified labels, musicians, albums and songs have articles. FWIW we've been indiscriminate. --Perfecto 00:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable James084 00:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 23:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star wars action news

This podcast does not appear to meet any of the WP:WEB criteria. Google responds to "star wars action news" with 36 unique hits. I've found little in there appearing to be more than a podcast directory listing, a note on a small-time fansite.

There is a forum by the same name, and it appears the two are related. The forum [28] boasts 101 registered users. Either way, delete as non-notable per WP:WEB. -- Saberwyn - 21:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. howch e ng {chat} 00:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, essay. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 01:47Z
Delete as podcruft and starwarscruft. Stifle 11:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 06:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stout Spider

At best, a non-notabile drink, but most of it is a hoax. JLaTondre 03:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as hoax -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:HOAX. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Dbtfz (talk • contribs) 22:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete patent nonsense (AVian Flu?!?!) Avi 05:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunrider international

Delete, advertisement for herbal supplement sales company DrNixon 04:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious advert. per nom. Zen611 04:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, advert. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 04:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:47Z
Delete per nom. BrianSmithson 20:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep or merge, nobody wants this to be deleted. If anyone wants to merge this, feel free to be bold and do it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Switch (song)

Barely notable by itself. Merge with Lost & Found. -Nv8200p talk 04:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge as per nom. --Lightdarkness 04:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: You don't need to bring it here for merging (this is articles for deletion :). See WP:MM - you could be bold and do merge it yourself. Also, I am not sure, but there may be a precedent to keep all singles that have been on charts. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:50Z
Redirect to Lost & Found album for Will Smith. —This user has left wikipedia 12:40 2006-01-23
Merge and Redirect since it was not released as a single. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. We have many, many articles on songs, and even quite a few FAs on them. This should be treated no differently. BrianSmithson 19:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- If the song is notable in its own right. I propose this song is not. -Nv8200p talk 20:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  - It isn't? It hit #5 on the British charts, hit the top of Billboard's digital tracks list [29] and the Aussie charts [30], and top 10 in the US. This should be an obvious keep --badlydrawnjeff 14:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep notable single. Grue 14:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Will Smith already has other articles about his songs, this is a notable song --Funkmaster 801 20:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Ifnord 02:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 20:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Szandora

Vanity biography of an erotica hula-hoop dancer / model. Tenuous claims to notability include being fiancee of Stanton LaVey (AFD discussion). Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 18:06Z

Nice dress, but Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep on basis of Google hits. 42,200 - and they seems to be her. Ifnord 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. --DelftUser 20:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Based on 53 Ghits for Szandora hula-hoop Dlyons493 Talk 21:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Dlyons493. Stifle 12:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete also per Dlyons493.--Gillespee 06:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 07:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tamarie Cooper

delete - unimportant Hulgetta 06:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanglefoot

Just a dictionary entry Uucp 23:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Legitimate topic, plus the term has other meanings as indicated by the article. 23skidoo 00:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep A pretty good look at the etymology of this word. Denni ☯ 02:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Etymologies belong in a dictionary article. This is an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 13:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep with cleanup, definitely not just a dicdef. Stifle 11:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
A dictionary article would be about the word tanglefoot, giving its etymology, meanings, pronunciations, translations, usage, and so forth. This article tells us about various people/concepts/places/events/things known as Tanglefoot (such as the cartoon character), and is thus an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 13:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Uncle G. More than a dictionary entry. ×Meegs 21:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Roadhouse

Blatant Advertising-Linkspam Avi 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom. Avi 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*Speedy delete per nom. –Ezeu 02:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It looked like a bad ad, so I voted a bit hastily. --Ezeu 02:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This was deleted speedily before as a copyvio. --Perfecto 02:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup, as I've already started to. It's definitely notable, if the assertions are true. Daniel Case 02:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The old article was deleted; the current one is still under discussion here. Avi 02:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My mistake; I typed in haste and have since edited my previous comments (before yours appeared). Website looks legit; however if I were an investor I'd not be impressed by the line that "We ... plan to open many new locations throughout 2005." Looks real sharp when it's late January and you forgot to update your website. Daniel Case 02:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep 200 locations makes it a rather large chain. Ruby 02:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable restaurant chain. Dbtfz 02:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as cleaned up. National restaurant chain. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep always found it ironic that Texas Roadhouse began across the river from me in Indiana... so I just had to mention that in the article. --W.marsh 04:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep a restaurant chain with locations in 14 states is notable. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:12, Jan. 23, 2006
Keep, if it has over 200 restaurants, it's a notable chain, even if they all are in Merka. JIP | Talk 10:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep but make more interesting. Robin Johnson 11:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep seems legit. —This user has left wikipedia 12:22 2006-01-23
Keep Real chain, I've eaten there and all. Perodicticus 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per ruby. Mushin ^talk 14:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep real chain, needs to be cleaned up. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep - This is a major chain. The article needs lots of additions, though. BabuBhatt 22:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per BabuBhatt. -- Eddie 22:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as a notable chain. Okay for a lower level steakhouse. Jtmichcock 00:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 23:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Arcanum

uncited; probable hoax Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless some verification is provided. Reads like a hoax. A quick Google search turns up no confirmation. Edgar181 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Muchness 23:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, evident hoax.--cjllw | TALK 00:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 01:45Z
Delete, secret societies are inherently unverifiable. Stifle 11:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete strongly suspected hoax. After deletion, suggest redirect to Arcanum Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Heartichokes

Delete. Non-notable band; tagged with music-importance for over two months with no additions to the article. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A1). howch e ng {chat} 00:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The_Maizie

Delete: vanity page Awcga 19:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, shameful. --DelftUser 20:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Complete contents: "The Maizie is my lovely wife and is turning 30 on Sunday, 15 January 2006. Happy Birthday!" --Lockley 20:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - vanity. Latinus 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Random Dojo

Only 483 google hits, mostly site or webcomic. 65 members is not notable, as well as no Alexa rank. PAGE CREATED BY SITE OWNER: User:ShoeMZ WriterFromAfar755 22:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete no evidence this meets WP:WEB guideline.--W.marsh 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I love it when the article makes its own case for deletion. howch e ng {chat} 23:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as patenet non-notable web forum. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 01:10Z
Delete per Quarl. Stifle 11:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 15:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was (withdrawn by nominator) but appeared keep. Ifnord 02:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third World War

~~band of no renown, vanity piece Jim62sch 00:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)~~

Delete -- Jim62sch 00:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn

Keep -- Article refers to a band that really existed and had a compartively good renown. The name Terry Stamp itself comes up with 2,360,000 the first page in a google search comes up with reference to Third World War. Abhishekpradhan 00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - No evidence of a hit on any chart. Article admits a "small fanbase, but not much else came of the band". Ruby 00:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

comment -- lets try 902 hits on Yahoo (Google's hits are inflated due to "sub-references"). You need to use the plus sign and quotes. Jim62sch 01:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to World War Three. Changing vote to keep after rewrite, however rename to Third World War (band) and make this title a disambiguation page since there is also a magazine and a pair of books by this title, and of course it's also an alternate way of saying World War Three. 23skidoo 01:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 01:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Abhishekpradhan. Dbtfz 01:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC) They are a notable underground band, cited as influences by the likes of Steve Albini, Joe Strummer, and Jello Biafra. Dbtfz 02:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 02:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect per 23skidoo —Wahoofive (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - absolutely not a vanity piece, they were an influential band. It just needs to be rewritten. HasNoClue 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to Ruby, see the following notability criteria for "performers outside of mass media tradition", which this band clearly falls under:

Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre.
Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list.

Keep per Dbtfz and HasNoClue, and cleanup. I'll do it tomorrow if nobody else does. - squibix 02:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote it; it's longer now, if nothing else. - squibix 16:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep per HasNoClue, et al. Crunch 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 03:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, influential proto-punk band. Andrew Levine 04:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to World War III per above, in my opinion. However, if kept, it should be moved to Third World War (band) with this title should redirect to World War III. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:17, Jan. 23, 2006
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep they featured John Hawken from The Strawbs therefor they automatically pass wiki/music or whatever it is. Jcuk 10:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - not a vanity piece, seems to be a notable band - but move to Third World War (band) and disambiguate. Robin Johnson 10:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, John Hawken's efforts are notable. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep expand and improve. See e.g. [31]. Influential as per the influenced (see above). "Possibly England's first punk rock band" see [32] - just a handful of links from page 1 of a Google search. And while it may not be an indicator of notability, Emule currently shows 4 users who are sharing the band's first album and 10 users sharing the World War Three II album. And, of course, they easily pass the - admittedly low - WP:Notability cutoff point of 5,000 albums sold. Both albums rereleased on one CD, see "This band are often cited as the forerunners of UK punk" [33]. Songs covered by Dana Gillespie [34] AvB ÷ talk 13:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per reasons given by various. Mushin ^talk 13:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per consensus. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 14:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- If a few of you will agree to make this into a real article, I'll be happy withdraw the nomination. If they are an important forerunner of punk, and if there are sources to prove this, then the article needs to stay. Jim62sch 14:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: squibix has already offered, and I may pop my head in once in a while to see what I can contribute. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 16:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- OK, I'll withdraw the nom, but, I's like to drop by from time to time to checl out how it's going. Hope I didn't offend anyone by AfD'ing it. I just hope we get a better article out of it. 71.242.5.11 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mistake article and mistake AfD. -- RHaworth 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page in Portuguese

A Portugese translation of The Wisdom of Crowds. Someone messed up a Wikilink and now the article "This page in Portugese" is a Portugese translation. Portugese translations don't belong on the English Wikipedia anyway, so in addition to this page being named incorrectly it doesn't belong on en-wiki at all. Cyde Weys 21:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "torrent nazi" and Torrent Nazi

Non-notable unstable neologism; original research; rant. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 15:49Z

I have speedily deleted the first article as a duplicate of the second. Mushroom 16:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete — Seems like a term with limited usage. Perhaps another time. Kareeser|^Talk! 16:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Mushroom 16:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete for reasons above and per WP:POINT. PJM 17:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as above. -- The Anome 17:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete rant --Ajdz 20:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per PJM. BrianSmithson 20:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete this is just text written out of bitterness. Cptchipjew 20:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 21:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
There's gratuituous linkspam, inappropriate tone and useless "content". Delete. --Agamemnon2 06:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete linkspam/rant, borders on an A6 speedy. Stifle 12:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
LEave Leave alone good and funny
Delete**Could lead to all sorts of usless rubbish being added to wiki, there are enough forums around the net for this kind of thing. Wikipedia is not the place.
Delete Not funny and not the least bit interesting, very bitter statement from a very disturbed/narrow/bitter mind. Anon.
Delete Not NPOV.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyuzfun

Poorly written ad for a nn website (so poorly written it doesn't even have the url!) Grutness...wha? 07:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable web forum. 109 registered members. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 07:33Z
Delete as blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 10:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. —This user has left wikipedia 12:52 2006-01-23
Delete per Quarl. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:WEB if the article is about the first hit that shows up on google (a web forum), but the article has no real content so it's hard to tell if it's even about that. - Bobet 13:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Quarl -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Latinus 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment The fact that it is poorly written is not justification to have it deleted... I would probably still delete it, but that is my 2cents Nick Catalano (Talk) 16:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unimulticulturality

Neologism. No google hits. Delete. LordViD 19:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per google hits. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a dictdef and a neologism. –Sommers ^(Talk) 20:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, dict def neologism. --Muchness 22:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:49Z
Delete dictdef neologism incog 19:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howch e ng {chat} 00:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vice Admiral Danz 'Mech' Brown

Delete as NN bio. This page was blanked. Lockley 20:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Latinus 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete db-bio (look at history) Avi 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worldview Weekend

nn website with a alexa rank of 300,000+ [35] Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn website. Crunch 03:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ruby 03:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Avi 05:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 08:15Z
Delete per nom. Robin Johnson 11:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per norm. —This user has left wikipedia 12:24 2006-01-23
Delete per nom. Mushin ^talk 14:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn. incog 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 20:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xivio

Non-notable online community. LordViD 18:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, Alexa traffic rank: No Data. --DelftUser 20:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable website, vanity. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 02:25Z
Delete, nn/advert. incog 18:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete advertising, not notable Avalon 10:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Proto t c 15:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] January 23

[edit] 411 (band)

[edit] A War of the Roses

[edit] Abandoned hotel

[edit] Alfred Bello

[edit] Alireza Rahimi Boroujerdi

[edit] AlterVistas

[edit] A•M Valve Company, LLC

[edit] American Populist Renaissance

[edit] Angriff

[edit] Angry White Male

[edit] AN/SPN-46 aircraft control radar

[edit] AppIQ

[edit] Art Digerati

[edit] Arthur oakeshott

[edit] Awards and Nominations earned by Avril Lavigne

[edit] Awesome Club

[edit] Azmaria_no_uta

[edit] Baba dzjo, Zjvet

[edit] Basel Sabbagh

[edit] Battle of Gavere

[edit] Bilakis

[edit] Boss Hoss

[edit] Bri bri

[edit] British National (Overseas) - extra information

[edit] Capstone requirements document

[edit] Chelsea Ownby

[edit] Colony5

[edit] Comparison of content management systems

[edit] Conrad Kresge

[edit] Crossingpoint

[edit] Cult of the Dragon

[edit] Dan Meigh

[edit] Dave Sim Tangent

[edit] David p wong

[edit] Daysailing

[edit] Diamond Heart and Training Institute

[edit] Digital pest

[edit] Direct perception

[edit] Dissipated Eight

[edit] Doodool River (with redirect at Doodool river)

[edit] Dos Passos Counterpoint

[edit] Drinkn From a Fire Hose

[edit] Edna Jean Garner

[edit] Ekhelar

[edit] Elder project

[edit] Eleusinian Mysteries Solved?

[edit] Enue

[edit] Facility 9461

[edit] Fanfare Games

[edit] Filmsite.org

[edit] Florida Datamation

[edit] Former Exarchate of Alexandria

[edit] Forum Instant Messenger

[edit] Foundry9

[edit] FSQL

[edit] Funeral Folk

[edit] FZClass

[edit] Getting Away With Murder: The JonBenet Ramsey Story

[edit] Gfxvoid

[edit] Gina_Locke

[edit] Global Majority

[edit] GMA Pinoy TV

[edit] Googolquinqueplex

[edit] Gyp (slang)

[edit] Haft

[edit] Halo 2 Glitches

[edit] Happy 2B Hardcore

[edit] Havana carnivals

[edit] Hododyne

[edit] How to make a computer virus

[edit] Iglooneer

[edit] Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

[edit] Insurrectionist

[edit] Intelligent Technologies and INtelligent Technologies

[edit] Irth

[edit] Irth Online