Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 2

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< February 1 February 3 >

Purge server cache

February 2

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic punk

edit

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

  • Strong Keep funnily enough! This is my first submission to Wikipedia, any helpful comments and advice welcome. Layout and content is still being worked on. As to being obscure, isn't it the job of encylopedias to shed light? Yes, it certainly does exist as is evidenced by the 268,000 Google hits on the term and international media coverage. What other minority 'interests' should we delete from Wikipedia? Scots Gaelic punk would be more relevant if we only take language into account. It is argued that you can't be a Gael without Gaelic. However, some of the bands mentioned do have influences rooted in traditonal Gaelic culture, for example use of the bagpipes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seonaidh (talk • contribs)
  • Keep definitely looks interesting, notable. ikh (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete after TransWiki. Mailer Diablo 00:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coney island whitefish

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Was a slightly expanded version of the article deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memes and Design but said nothing new. -- RHaworth 00:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

edit

Gobbledegook original research. -- RHaworth 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proto Man: Powered Up

edit

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

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


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy Delete CSD: A7 --lightdarkness 02:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nadanai Laohakunakorn

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

Humanistic naturalism

edit

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

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


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

The result of the debate was close early with no result because it needs to be handled as a copyright problem instead. --Michael Snow 06:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

edit

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturean

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Super Mushroom. -Splashtalk 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poison Mushroom

edit

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

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

NoIdeaNick 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axegrinder

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicompany

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of groups of four

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 03:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What A Brand Is

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Pathoschild: CSD A1 --lightdarkness 02:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of crimes against the apostrophe

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Merge-or-not can be worked out on the talk page(s). -Splashtalk 00:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insane Crips

edit

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

-"Long Beach seeks order to curb gang" in San Diego Union-Tribune, May 24, 2003.
-"Drug-related fugitive list reduced" in Press-Telegram, Spet. 30, 2005.
The fact that the group is in the news, and that they have ties to demonstrably notable people, and are fairly large and a violent history, to me makes them notable. --Hansnesse 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete - brenneman(t)(c) 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mansuit

edit

was on CSd, but seems not, neologism? delete-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Desperation

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Tank

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travicola

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zanzibar Radio

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was redirect to G-man (slang). Mailer Diablo 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-Men(Slang)

edit

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

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


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brent bradshaw

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soul.za

edit

Foreign language advertisement for non-notable website.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Crosina (2nd nomination)

edit

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

Comment: The BCHL is not a professional hockey league. --Andy Saunders 20:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm not convinced this is useful as a redirect, so someone else can create it if they like. -Splashtalk 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Coptic Orthox Church

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karayana and David Dom

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StabilAntenna

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evening's Greetings

edit

Non-notable, somewhat vanity article. I could not find any reputable sources that discuss "Evening's Greetings". ~MDD4696 01:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otterkill Golf & Country Club

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masskontroll

edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 00:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antisystem

edit
  • Keep: per great research! Needs sources documented. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Delete: Non-notable band. Article mentions only one possibly-full-length album which doesn't meet WP:BAND guideline of two full-length albums. No mention on Amazon or AllMusic (AllMusic does have an entry for Anti System - two words - but it may be a different band and doesn't say anything anyway). Can't find any sources actually. The only candidate for an official page was a 404 broken link. A search on one of the album names gave only Wikipedia mirrors. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
This entry seems to be unverifiable, but please do remember that there's more things mentioned in WP:NMG that could merit inclusion beside 2 full length albums and Amazon and All Music listings. A band with no albums can still be notable for other reasons. - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per thorough nom. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Anti System. The AMG entry in question is [4]. Under the discography tag, one of the albums is Defence of the System, which is mentioned in the article. However, the only other listing there is No Laughing Matter, which is not mentioned in the article but which does appear to be by the same band, see [5]. They did appear to release two albums, A Look at Life and No Laughing Matter. So they have an AMG entry, they have two albums...really, they do meet WP:MUSIC. You get many more relevant results for Anti System in Google if you use the two-word version of their name. Raggaga 12:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & move to Anti System per Raggaga. I grant this is on the very cusp of notability, but they do have an All Music entry, even if it is just a discography with no bio. And they have done two albums. Let's remove some of those red links, though. StarryEyes 13:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, now I'm thorougly confused. With your new info, I found this link which shows their Defence of the Realm EP with five tracks. The article mentions Defence of the Realm with "2 more tracks" and none of the names match. Are we sure we're dealing with the right band here? And what is this link showing? It looks like they gathered the bits and pieces from their scattered catalog and released it as one CD? Doesn't that still mean they've only made enough music to fit on one CD? You've almost got me convinced to keep except now I'm worried about their verifiability with this new conflicting info. Then again, if we have to jump through this many hoops to find anything, how notable can they be?! —Wknight94 (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are not "notable" in the dictionary sense of the word, but they do meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. OK, I think I've got it all sorted out. Here was the original text of the article: "anti system formed in 1981 in 82 there 8 track demo came out they had 2 tracks on Punk Dead - Nah Mate, The Smell is Jus Summink in Yer Underpants Innit 12"(Pax, 1982) then they released defence of the realm ep (pax, 1982) had 2 more tracks on Bollox to the Gonads - Here's the Testicles LP (Pax, 1984) after pax records went under they singed to reconciliation records in 84 85 saw the release of there legendary lp no laughting matter in 86 they released there last best release a look at life(12) anti sytem were not a crust band they were hard core punk." They never said that "Defence of the Realm EP" included songs called "Bollox to the Gonads" and "Here's the Testicles", but that they contributed two songs to the album called Bollox to the Gonads - Here's the Testicles. This link reveals that that album is a compilation. The person who did the clean-up made the understandable mistake, given the original text's sheer incomprehensibility. StarryEyes 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and good job sorting this all out. -Colin Kimbrell 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yeah, fantastic! They still seem too obscure to warrant an article but they do indeed seem to have a chance at meeting WP:MUSIC so I changed my vote as well. If an admin wants to close this one, it's fine by me. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to pass WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan 19:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough, understandable that a more obscure band from the 80s would have a short first posting. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP, as this has been massively edited during this AfD [6]. It would need a new debate to examine this version of the article. -Splashtalk 00:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous opiate addicts

edit

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

Yeah, my comment wasn't a vote either. I'd lean toward keep as I think there is a greater historical importance to opium addiction than there is for some others. However I'm not certain this list is necessary or worth it.--T. Anthony 04:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment newly created user with this vote as only edit. Weregerbil 07:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment newly created user with this vote as only edit. Weregerbil 07:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And also a character from Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, like all the other redlinks here. I would say they were vote-cramming, but they're voting different ways... — sjorford (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I trust I don't need to explicate upon my close here. -Splashtalk 00:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awag

edit

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

  • Delete per nom. (Signed: J.Smith) 06:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue that to several hundred people, if not thousands (let's include the lurkers), that the subject matter is important. That the signee has not heard of the subject should not be used as reason alone for deletion. I am sure if i searched through the wiki files I would find plenty of entries that I considered to be unimportant. As I stated last night when asking for the page to not be deleted, similar entries for other websites are included. As for having no notoriety, again that is a subjective viewpoint of the signee and surely cases should be reviewed on an objective not subjective issue. The entry will make more sense when it is completed, but I say again, to thousands of people the entry will be relevant. Sitheroo 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Savidan 07:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Put it in a dictionary if you can convince someone it is a real word. Weregerbil 09:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Move to Wiktionary Definition of the word is dictionary material, "history" section is nonsense. Weregerbil 10:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word has been used several times in the British media, 2 examples are
  • It has also appeared in three books 'Is it cowardly to pray for rain', 'She Stood There Laughing' & 'The Book of football lists'. Has been mentioned on BBC Radio 1. Hold on, I'll be back with more in a bit. Sitheroo 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in parts of Britain and in certain media. Deadlock 10:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Relevant to many followers of lower league Professional football. Dantl 10:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. those who would deny wikipeeja of an entry for awag should look at themselves in the mirror and comb their hair. it has brought entertainment to people from all four corners of the world; england, sweden, the caribbean and stoke-on-trent. folk should not dismiss something they do not understand, i mean, 3-2-1 used to be a popular saturday night telly. awag must be represented wa la bingo bango. Denby 10:44am, 2 feb 2006
  • Oi weregerbil. It's a social commentary on an internet phenomena and hence clearly not nonsense. It needs tidying up and making more readable but is still valid on the encyclodepic side of the site. Sitheroo 10:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Savidan, your entry interests me. What relevance in the wider scheme of things do the rules to a drinking game known by an few people at an educational establishment have? Sitheroo 11:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The history is as relevant as the definition. To disregard and ignore recorded and factual events is a threat to democracy and smacks of communism.jerichoharris
  • keep. I second Sith's emotion (except I have no interest whatsoever in anything to do with Savidan and the word "entry"). It is certainly more relevant than some esoteric mating ritual practised by a bunch of idiots in green jumpers with letters on them who attend some American establishment no doubt famous for its practise of unbridled Man-Love and named after a rather shabby British Dockyard. In short, keep it, or I'll ram you up your own fudge-tunnels. Bernoulli
  • OUTRAGE. Nazism too. Keep the knarly thing IN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.5.114 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as nonsense. Zunaid 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Some of the material that appears on awag may be contentious, but it is subvesive and invetive: it is this very FACTAMUNDO (overlooked by the main page author incidentally) that is the ESSENCE of AWAG: it forms a continuum of a deeply embedded strand of British SATIRE c/f 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' and 'The Office.'
  • Reply: That note is merely to inform the closing admin. New users' opinions are not given the same weight as users who have long contribution histories. Zunaid 14:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello. I've cleared the unhelpful entries off. My intellect alone will be enough to convince you that Awag should be allowed to stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the Wikipedia community. I am, however, busy at work, so if you could hold on til tomorrow night when I've got some time to argue it's case properly I'd be wholly grateful. Hugs and stuff Sitheroo 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: please do no delete other people's entries no matter how unhelpful they may be. You also removed my delete vote in doing so. This kind of thing is frowned upon. I've restored all the comments to their prior state. Zunaid 14:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having been familiar with the word awag for several years I am surprised that this is a relatively new entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.10.221 (talk • contribs)
  • keep i am not a puppet of the sock or meat variety. this is the first time ever that i've had an opinion on anything and i want to express it. no i had another opinion once, i don't like beards. Denby 13:53, 2 february 2006 (utc)
  • I got the term onto radio 1, of course it's important. there are probably millions upon millions of people out there wondering what on earth I meant, and now they come to Wikipedia and find out. Wa la bingo bango- brilliant. MHG
  • keep awag is a well-known old English word. Did not Alfred The Great once say "look out lads, it's the vikings - and they're going awag in a very bad way"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.187.197 (talk • contribs)
  • keep Just in case anybody is paranoid enought to think that I might be Andy in disguise I'm not. Plus I'm married to an American an everything. Doesn't this give me some kind of extra influence? I've applied for my green card and everything. Jerichoharris 14:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I'm back with a proper user name which will hopefully take the edge off the more anal contributor's attitudes. I have an encyclopaedic knowledge of many subjects I will be more than happy to contribute to one I discover the nature of the beast we're humping here. I reiterate that if "Dartmouth Pong" or some water park which caters to people who weigh as much as a small family car are regarded as suitable for inclusion then it would be scandalous not to extend the same courtesy to Awag. ElBerno
  • keep A definition for nonsense as given on wikipedia. "Much madness is divinest sense to the discerning eye. Given that Zunaid is ingorant of the term AWAG, it's usage and importance in Modern Britain, it is little wonder he has described it as such and says much about his own powers of discernment. Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky is afforded room here and AWAG makes a lot more sense that it does.Jerichoharris 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I haven't read the article but anything supported by so many sock puppets has to be deleted. JIP | Talk 15:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject matter is referenced in several different media. As linked above - Three books? I suspect there's more. Relative obscurity does not automatically equal unencyclopedic - It certainly seems more worthy than some. Dartmouth pong? behave yourselves. I'm not a bleeding sock puppet, just quite affronted by some of the self-important bilge spewed by lorry-sized patronising yanks. Pear 15:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People who recommend articles they haven't read for deletion really should just fuck right off. Expecially if they are in their 20s and still play with Transformers, you daft perkele tosspot ElBerno
  • Delete. Re: Dartmouth pong. There is a difference between a game that's been popular for decades among a notable community (Dartmouth is generally considered one of the ten most prestigious universities in America, not that that matters) and a typographical error/inside joke that is relevant to a handful of soccer fans. StarryEyes 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Whether a community is 'notable' is entirely subjective. Awag as a concept has been atround for several years, and is well referenced - 'handful' is your just perception - it is utterly incorrect. And it's football, thanks. Pear 16:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether a community is notable or not is subjective, but degrees of notability are very concrete. I'd take a world-renowned university over a few soccer fans any day of the week, thanks. StarryEyes 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, perhaps you'd be kind enough to direct me to your notability-o-meter? Again, there are considerably more than a few football fans out there to whom "Awag" means something. It means more to me than a university named after a stinking dock ever will. But I suspect I'll never reach the necessary levels of self-obsessed patronising bleating required to become 'established' enough on here to count for anything. Woe is me Pear 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might want to try Google. "Dartmouth College" (including the quotes, thus excluding many relevant results, considering it is universally known as simply "Dartmouth" by all Americans) has 11,400,000 results. awag football (excluding quotes, thus including many irrelevant results) has a whopping 567. Anyway, don't make it out like I'm a Dartmouth-phile or anything. They rejected me, in fact. StarryEyes 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (Just had a look on GOOGLE, starryeyes is telling porkies. AWAG gets over 11,000 references. "Dartmouth Pong" got 208. Liar liar pants on fire................The comparison was between Dartmouth Pong and AWAG not Dartmouth and AWAG football. Cuntwipe.[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  • The argument is "silly" because of your ignorance. You are ignorant of what AWAG is, or means, and of it's place in British culture. Given this level of ignorance how can you possibly be in a postition to judge whether or not it should be given a place in what professes to be a informative on-line encyclopedia.Jerichoharris 17:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OH GOD THE MEATPUPPETS THEY BURN. Doesn't seem to be notable, is definitely badly written, verifiability seems wanting (although I came across a website which uses the term...well, let's just say it doesn't verify a damned thing). So, yeah, delete. Lord Bob 17:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AWAG is not just a community, it's a way of life, a way of escaping boredom at work and at home with like minded people, It is also a perfect vehicle to co-ordinate social occasions across the country....sorry YOOKAY!, the football element contributes only a small percentage to that which is AWAG. Maybe you narrow minded fuckwits can't get your head around people who can actually manage their own lives and make their own decisions and generate their own community without having their heads up their own self important arses. But then again we do have history culture and breeding.

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

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

Comment:Please see WP:PN.-Colin Kimbrell 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to your own daft encyclopaedia, "The Meat Puppets" are a punk band. Why do you keep referring to people as though they were members of this band? Also how can the band be worthy of inclusion but its apparent members (of which there seem to be many) are not? dan 18:20, 2 February 2006 (COYRs) -- this comment by User:217.37.187.197 bikeable (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
...almost funny. I am very familiar with the Meat Puppets, thank you. Please read WP:SOCK, and realize that the comments of people who are new to wikipedia and arrive just to "vote" on this AfD are not likely to count for much. bikeable (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. The last paragraph reads "Do not call these users "meatpuppets"; be civil." but I've not seen much civility from the delete brigade. All I see is name-calling, abuse and ridiculous censorship. Real friendly.dan 21:14, 2 February 2006 (COYRs) -- this comment by User:84.9.208.158. bikeable (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Capitalistroadster 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely Yours

Ruth Weinberg

  • Delete egads... --W.marsh 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the quantity of votes and comments here seems to have negated the non-notability alleged in the nomination. Carlossuarez46 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not trying to criticize, really, but this is the first time I've ever seen "keep because of sockpuppets" used. Lord Bob 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No criticism taken nor intended, but is there any proof that these are sockpuppets? I will assume good faith until proven otherwise (which you may well do). Carlossuarez46 03:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sockpuppets was the wrong term on my part. I should have used meatpuppets, and the evidence is that a large number of anonymous users or newly registered users with no edit histories to speak of are speaking up in favour of this article. This is not usual practice for a deletion and indicates that somebody is trying to round up support. Lord Bob 04:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. The nom. for deletion was based on non-notability (phrased as non-notoriety). Meatpuppet & Sockpuppet votes will be discounted or disregarded, however it does seem to show that there is some minimal notability (notoriety?) on the subject. We have a fairly low threshold for notability (nearly every murderer or executed murder at least is considered notable enough, as are semi-deities in any number of sci-fi genres, and on and on). Years from now (encyclopedically speaking) these non-notables will not be remembered, but that doesn't preclude their appearance here. If we want to up the threshhold of notability (like we have done with music), I'd be all for it IFF we apply it consistently. In any event, at least I spurred some discussion. You'll note that generally my votes on AfD's are not anti-majoritarian although sometimes I state that I didn't necessarily agree with the rationale. If I end up as a minority of one, I think I can take it. :-) Carlossuarez46 21:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While there maybe some actually genuine and useful content buried somewhere in the article, the shear amount of irrelevancy, filler and intentional piss-taking, leads me to conclude the loss of any potentially genuine content is preferable to the reputation damage done by having such an atrocious article sitting in WikiP, and the loss of time necessary to bring it up to a minimum standard. I'm all for people posting 'full' articles when they can, instead of just stubs, but for f**ks sake! Send it to Uncyclopedia! --Myfanwy 02:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Better, but probably still not good enough for me to change my vote. There's no independent verification of the website's traffic claim, which seems to be the main claim to notability, and in one of the two newspaper references cited earlier, the main body of the reference is the sportswriter admitting that he's never heard the term and doesn't know what it means [9]. We need more verifiable, independent information about awag/awagging to demonstrate widespread usage. -Colin Kimbrell 14:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Do people keeep insisting that many of the contributions on here are by 'sockpuppets'? What is to say that the people that say 'Delete' are not merely sockpuppets of the nominator?
Most of the people saying 'Delete' in this article have a well-established presence and edit history on this encyclopedia. (You can use this tool to check edit counts automatically, if you'd like.) It isn't practical to believe that the nominator would meticulously construct a 500+ post edit history for all of these people simply to abuse AFD process. Meanwhile, a lot of the people saying 'Keep' have only a dozen or so edits, almost all of which are to Awag or to this AFD discussion. It doesn't mean that they definitely are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but it's certainly suspicious. -Colin Kimbrell 14:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

Ruth Weinberg


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

joncBEE.


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

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

ElBerno XX

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


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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Minds do not appear to have been changed despite the (very partial) translation. -Splashtalk 00:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yusradi Usman Al Gayoni

edit

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

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. BD2412 T 02:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Moshe Sinai

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion for nn-band. enochlau (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marionette body

edit

Appears to be vanity and fail WP:MUSIC. Delete SarekOfVulcan 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete A8. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 03:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jump Mobile

edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was close early with no result because it needs to be handled as a copyright problem instead. --Michael Snow 06:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim magazine's 20 Most Annoying Songs Ever!

edit

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

Technically they didn't label the songs as "worst ever", just "most annoying ever". Deco 00:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Beverlin II

edit

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

For what it's worth, there is also Insides Music by the same author, which appears to be another vanity article. Edgar181 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've also started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insides Music. RasputinAXP talk contribs 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose delete (strong keep) As per comments above, if a third party had contributed this article there wouldn't be a problem. i think wikipedia's very value is in documenting the non-mainstream. If we wanted stuff on U2 or Queen or something we'd go to Allmusic or something. Personally I think its valuable that wikipedia is a medium for documenting and making accessable the works of marginal musicians. See also my arguemnets against deletion of the article I contributed on Red Square (band) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Square (band)) quercus robur 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Re: quercus robur's comment, if a third party had contributed this article, it would mean that there was less of a problem, because someone else would have taken notice of him and wouldn't be writing from personal experience. Postdlf 21:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: specifically We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. WP:V trumps all, except possibly WP:IAR, but that's the usual frame of things around here. RasputinAXP talk contribs 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"trumps all" seesm to asume some kind of points scoring thing, which doesn't interest me. If we want wikipedia to only focus on the mainstream and duplicate what the highly inaccurate (from my experience) 'allmusic' posits as 'notable',and sideline and delete the marginal, fine, but to me this diminishes the value of the entire project. quercus robur 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a points scoring thing; my meaning is that exclaiming "but it's obscure and needs to be kept" is overridden by the fact that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Content must be verifiable, and if you're drawing on personal knowledge it still requires sources. If I was to write an article about kitten huffing drawing from my experience in underground world of kitten-dealing, I'd still have to show that there was a primary or secondary source supporting it. To fall back on "these things are undocumented and so it is up to us to document them" is to undermine what Wikipedia is trying to do: build a verifiable and neutral source of information that is freely available to the world as a whole. I feel a rant coming on, so I'll stop here and possibly continue on another subpage of my User page later. RasputinAXP talk contribs 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - Delete. Tomertalk 06:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's fourth law

edit

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

Google show 652 hits. Keep. --Walter Görlitz 02:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those hits all seem unrelated to the content of the article; add a few more keywords (like "belief" or "annette") to the search and it gives zero hits. The article also contradicts the information at Isaac Newton. If anything, this page should in my opinion be a redirect to Newton's law of gravity, expect that we don't currently have a separate article on that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't mnake that redirect, because as observed below, Newton's 4th 'is not gravitation — it is not anything; it does not exist. Newton has three and only three laws. Unlucky for him, but we shouldn't imply he has a 4th. -Splashtalk 03:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See beyond the few hundred Google hits here. The term appears only to be used in humourous reference, and without any consistent reference (or any particular humour, but anyway). There appears to be a couple of hits enquiring why Newtons 4th isn't gravitation, but the answer is just "it isn't". I can't see the use of an article about a humorous, but meaningless idiom nor one about what the 4th law definitely isn't. It's not like Gravitation is often referred to as Newton's 4th, either, so let's not go there. If I must cite WP:NOT, then this would be NOT a slang or idiom guide, not a jokebook and not an indiscriminate collection of 'information'. Delete. -Splashtalk 03:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isaac Newton has three laws. Delete all others. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 03:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Nintendo World

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hodgson Ski Tours

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Bullet

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~1~

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD A1). After removing the POV and libellous material, there was no content left to speak of. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel braverman

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Gruenhut

edit

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was keep - --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Vendera

edit

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix 14:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lowe

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introsexual

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Helen Keller. -Splashtalk 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Arthur H. Keller

edit

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

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 22:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Jodziewicz

edit

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

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitry - Claye (SNCF)

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wayne

edit


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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wikt. -Splashtalk 01:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cupcake party

edit

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

  • Delete author of the article has vandalised before [12]. —This user has left wikipedia 10:02 2006-02-02
  • Transwiki to wiktionary, if they want it - Google search reveals several thousand hits, and if I've heard of it (on the other side of the planet), then chances are it's a reasonable well-known term. But it's unlikely that it'll ever be more than a dictdef. Grutness...wha? 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. If Grutness has heard of it, I believe it exists, regardless of the author's history. Please discuss articles based on their merit and not that of their creator. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google reveals a lot of hits but they are mostly not relevant. Mosly they are cupcake parties, merely parties involving cupcakes and not a specific now referring to this specific type of party. I mean it could go to Wiktionary but there really is no reason to do so. IMO Hdstubbs 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Fensler

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as link spam. - Lucky 6.9 04:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back-space.org

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search And Rescue Records

edit

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 01:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Special (store)

edit

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kemo For Emo

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep DES (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi Mud Pie

edit

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

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

  • Delete without prejudice to recreation if it is about the notable eponymous dessert and not this sex act. Youngamerican 13:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Change vote to keep, as I re-wrote the article to be about the popular dessert pie that originated in Mississippi. Article should be renamed Mississippi mud pie if kept. Youngamerican 13:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite, of course. (The early history could still be deleted). Kusma (討論) 14:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite, and purge the other versions from the history if possible. -Colin Kimbrell 17:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep re-write and delete older history if possible. Thanks Youngamerican for fixing it! TMS63112 19:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Copy the rewritten article to Mississippi mud pie and delete this artice, burn it's ashes and scatter them somewhere along w/ its history. —This user has left wikipedia 20:31 2006-02-02
    • Comment In keeping complient with the GFDL, We cannot simply copy and paste the article. We have to do a move, then an admin can delete the scatalogical edits before my total rewrite. I almost did the move a second ago, but I am pretty sure that it isn't appropriate to do a move while an AfD is ongoing (although I could be wrong). Youngamerican 20:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I copied this from the policy guide on moving pages: The "move page" function keeps the entire edit history of the page, before and after the move, in one place, as if the page were always named that way. So, you should never just move a page by cutting all the text out of one page, and pasting it into a new one; old revisions, notes, and attributions are much harder to keep track of if you do that.
This seems to indicate that the article should not be copied and pasted, even by me. I am putting up a RfC on this one. Youngamerican 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for a move, I simply deleted the articel and restored only the newer revisions. Thus the history is intact for your three revisions, but the older ones are gone. DES (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yankel Miller

edit

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

  • Keep. 247 Google hits for a Hassidic guy? That's mamish meshuge (really crazy)! His biography should be expanded or merged with badchen. Akerensky99 05:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the author has a lot of fairly good edits on Jewish topics... assuming good faith. —This user has left wikipedia 09:42 2006-02-02
  • Keep. While the Google count is low, there appear to be multiple references to commercially released comedy albums; quite a few of the references which turn up suggest that the subject is quite popular in non-English-speaking markets, which in part explains the low Google count. Monicasdude 15:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yeah he's probably primarily a yiddish speaker.
  • Keep. Stubby, and could use citation, but a perfectly valid topic. Agree with the above "keepers". One of the few even vaguely prominent contemporary exponents of a centuries old tradition (for which follow up the badchen link, which is in the article). - Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Edison Phase

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clickpenang

edit

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

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


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exfuga

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, although it sounds as if some merge work might want to be done by a willing volunteer. -Splashtalk 01:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AC/EP

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, gently. -Splashtalk 01:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Running with Scissors (webcomic)

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angus George Harcourt Perry

edit


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test Squad

edit

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

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

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

The result of the debate was merged by GeorgeStepanek. - Mgm|(talk) 12:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational shift

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. With the information now added to the article, I think I'd like to see this re-examined before deletion. The allmusic.com page in particular does not seem complete. NB. I had to replcae the tinyurl link with the full Google link since tinyurl links are now banned sitewide. -Splashtalk 01:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edison Glass

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Personal

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child Online Protection Act i

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forty-nine character virtues

edit

List of vague adjectives with no connecting ideas or explanations. Nothing noteworthy to keep and the ideas are directly copied from the author's personal webpage[18] save biblical references. This article should be deleted and the link to the "Forty-nine character virtues" should be placed Bill Gothard's wikipedia page for interested parties. Arbustoo 06:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCDe✉ 23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neptunes Convoy

edit

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

  • Delete Trying to google info on the band gives 7 results (google for "Neptunes Convoy" australia OR "michael black" OR "ben haggerty" OR dominique -wikipedia) . —This user has left wikipedia 08:42 2006-02-02
  • Delete.
 It all began one morning when founding members Michael Black and Ben Haggerty decided to jump on a keyboard and make musical bliss.

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

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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). howcheng {chat} 07:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Clarke

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: Eric, Wikipedia is not a blog nor a place at which to publish vague articles on pop phenomena. There are plenty of other places for this kind of creative output: wikis such as "everything2", refereed journals such as "first monday", or personal web pages. This article is no more appropriate than it would be to have allowed Eric Raymond to first publish his "Homesteading the Noosphere" essay here. WP is not the place for original research. linas 18:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, after the vote is over, I suggest that this article be a redirect to Homesteading the Noosphere. linas 18:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If ericbritton wants to create an article he should do it completely and in one moment, not to leave it in such state for months. The article as it is now doesn't fit any Wiki criteria. My vote is about quality, not about validity of the topic. Pavel Vozenilek 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
novel usage of the word "months".--Marvin147 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but possibly merge some of the content into Massively distributed collaboration, which pre-dates it and covers some of the same ground. It's indeed an interesting developing topic, but I agree with Pavel Vozenilek that the quality of the article is inadequate: it not only appears to breach the Wikipedia policy of no original research (which no one has explicitly mentioned but I hope ericbritton has read), but also ignores other style and content guidelines, for example by including a section signed by Eric, and even by having underscores in wiki links. -- JimR 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete (see below for reasons) - everything on the current version is unencyclopedic and needs to be deleted, but the topic is certainly encyclopedic. I see no reason to delete the article outright; why not replace everything thats there with a small stub? -Pierremenard 03:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried to do this, but after reading everything thats there I see that the topic of self organizing networks is already covered in Emergence and Self organization. Changing my vote to delete. --Pierremenard 05:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Globe Theatre. See Talk:Shakespeare's Stage for rationale. Tomertalk 07:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's Stage

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was - delete (hoax) Tomertalk 07:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inger Worblethrop

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sim City Journal Union

edit

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Tomertalk 07:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Crimes Commission

edit

Delete

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The result of the debate was merge as per RayGates; this is an editorial decision due to lack of consensus. Feel free to call me a WP:DICK on WP:DRV. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SGCSim (Computer Program), Stargate command simulator'

edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

(votes re Stargate command simulator')

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

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


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G1). howcheng {chat} 19:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man XD

edit

Pure nonsense. No such game exists. Speedy it. ZeroTalk 09:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 14:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi technologies

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lowri

edit

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

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 14:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lab Rats

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 14:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubber and Spoons Take The Bus

edit

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

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


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Petaholmes as patent nonsense. Stifle 11:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gregg

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (withdrawn by the nominator). Deathphoenix 14:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeoxylology

edit

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

See my comment below. - Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: google for "palaeoxylological" for a change, to keep the mirrors out. It's certainly a valid, existing term, being used in titles of a few academic papers, though not terribly frequent. That it means what the article says it means seems clear (Greek "palaeo" and "xylon" 'wood'). Whether we can get enough material about it for a Wikipedia (as opposed to Wiktionary) stub, I can't say. Lukas (T.|@) 11:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was a decent stub before Brya moved the content to wiktionary (thereby removing its edit history from normal view on wikipedia) and replaced it with a wiktionary hyperlink. I suggest we reinstate the original version. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the idea, Lukas. I hereby withdraw my request to delete it, but like to ask you all to decide whether we need the old stub here or move the entry on Wiktionary. - Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator (me), with no other delete votes. Stifle 23:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 01:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of national parks of Belarus

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 14:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didx

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was - dubious consensus, but more keep than delete. See Talk:List of national parks of Dominica for more. Tomertalk 07:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of national parks of Dominica

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 14:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of assets owned by Grinner's Food Systems Limited

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, no need to keep this on AFD. Withdrawn by nominator with no other votes to delete. Stifle 23:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marathi language television channels

edit

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

Okay the link to the word listcruft, an article you created, says it means:Obsolete, non-notable, or only of interest to a few. Well as this is a living language with existing TV channels obsolete doesn't apply. The language is apparently spoken by 70 million so it's not non-notable or "only a few" either.--T. Anthony 11:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That said it needs attention. After almost three years it has only three names two of them red links. If there actually are that few Marathi language channels this should perhaps, instead, become an article on Marathi language television. Lists are often best when, as a list, they are too long to work in an article.--T. Anthony 11:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree. However, I am not using "cruft" as a catch-all - I cited a reason at the top of my nomination.
  • Keep, potentially useful. Just because articles haven't been created yet, doesn't mean those redlinks should be deleted. They promote article creation. Besides, cruft is not a valid reason to delete something. - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix 14:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of illbient musicians

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dot tax

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 14:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless plug

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete and redirect to Scooby-Doo. Deathphoenix 14:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Delete. Another vanity page by Mikhail Tank, who's listed for deletion himself. KNewman 08:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decahedron (band)

edit

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

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

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

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Sight For Sore Pies

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. W.marsh 03:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common Children

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G1, G3, A6, take your pick). howcheng {chat} 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buling

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ramsey

edit

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

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


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

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup. Deathphoenix 14:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Fink

edit

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

  • Delete or Rewrite I can't say for sure because the author uses an IP address rather than a username, but given the other contributions of this user (see Talk:Divje_Babe), I'm fairly confident that it is WP:AUTO. Additionally, I think that WP:NOT soapbox could be an issue due to the content of the Social Activism section of the article. Withdrawing my vote After reading the article's Talk page, I won't assume the subject is NN. I still have questions about whether this is WP:AUTO or at the very least an article submitted by a close acquaintance of the subject, which is what concerned me the most about this article. --Bugturd Talk 13:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. "I'm pissed off at the author/subject of the article and don't care whether it meets the criteria for deletion" is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion; instead, it's arguably a WP:POINT violation. Monicasdude 15:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a tendency on wikipedia to delete all controversial pages. Just because the neanderthal flute is not accepted as a flute by many others in the field does not mean Finks page should be deleted.--Rdos 18:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move current text to user page Definitely notable. But in the current form, a lot of it is a fairly close mirror of the Author's Background section at www.greenwych.ca. Talk at Talk:Bob Fink and Talk:Divje Babe makes it clear that this article is sourced by Bob Fink's publisher, if not Bob Fink himself [21], which makes it in breach of WP:VAIN and Wikipedia:Autobiography
    You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, and any other possible conflict of interest. Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales himself [22]. Refraining from such editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV-pushing).
  • I suggest therefore, that the current version should go to the Greenwych (talk · contribs) user page, and Bob Fink be edited down - by non-involved editors - to more encyclopedic form. Tearlach 12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If I recall, the autobiolgraphical policy is called a "soft" policy, whatever that means. I assume it means that the merits of the page (verifiable, notable, educationally informative) can trump the policy on occasion. Can you cite an example of that -- e.g. Wales? His edits and page remain, I think, no? The facts, docs and verifications I posted will read the same whether as publisher, I posted them with a biased relish or with bored aloofness. --Candace. I also quote "Largevelho" from the talk page:
    --Lagarvelho 19:50, 2 February 2006)"I think this article should be kept in Wikipedia. Why? Fink may not be a "well-known" person, but he is well known among musicians and musicologists, and has done important work in the field of the origins of music. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his conclusions about this subject is another question, and whatever his political views, they are more or less irrelevant to his views on the earliest music and instruments."
"The facts, docs and verifications I posted will read the same whether as publisher, I posted them with a biased relish or with bored aloofness."
  • Whoever posted them, they need the same fact-checking. For instance, I have just removed to the Talk page a completely untrue claim that "Fink [in 1995] was among the first to write a computer program that could compose melodies by itself".
    Really, Tearlach, you should try to quote in context. First of all, the key words in the quote which you claim is "completely untrue" are: "among the first" and "by itself." Also check the webpage announcing the program (which was nominated by Discover magazine for one of its contests in 1997 -- we have their letter). The webpage says: "This MAY be the world's first..." and further down, Fink mentions earlier programs than his that combined snippets from existing music, but that his program works from scratch, and Fink is then quoted: "I THINK I was AMONG the first to develop such a program," that writes melodies by itself. Taking all comments together hardly qualifies your claim it is "completely untrue. Are you looking for flaws and faults rather than making serious arguments? I hope not.
    Oh, please, this is sheer sophistry. Computer generated music - including computer-generated melodies - predates Bob Fink's Serendipity by at least 20 years. Even with reservations like "may" and "think" and quibble about what "by itself" means, it's a bullshit claim. That you're trying to defend it is pretty good evidence of why this article needs independent editing. Tearlach 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How come you get to add your B.S. after the decision was made to delete anyway and to not alter this page???? You're a little crooked, sonny. "Among" is a real word with real meaning. But your hostile misrepresentations already got you your way. It's deleted. Whatmore do you want -- the Last Word? Okay. -- Knock yourself out! I'll leave a space for you right below. Candace 65.255.225.34 04:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use of space accepted because I've no idea what you mean. The article hasn't been deleted, and I never did vote for deletion: just copying the full version to the Greenwych (talk · contribs) user space, and editing the article space version to an independently written encyclopedic form. Tearlach 04:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also quote "Largevelho" from the talk page
  • Note also that assessors of AfDs are generally alert to meatpuppets that appear as entirely new accounts that spring up to defend articles against deletion. Tearlach 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're implying that I organized the entry by Largevelho, that's a lie. You have no evidence for that nor can you have any. How credible would it be if I claimed without evidence that the person below voting "delete" (Douglas Smith) was some one you arranged to write in against me just because he is a "new" user? If you continue on this tack, Mr. Tearlach, make sure you format it in caps and italics and with plenty of space so it can be seen afar and thus carry more weight for your false accusations. Anyway, I've had enough of this. Say whatever you wish. Others know how to fact-check as well as you. Candace 65.255.225.34 01:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page should be kept. Whether or not the Divje Babe object is a flute, the article represents the point of view, not only of fink, but of a number of other experts. Perhaps it could be edited and joined with the viewpoints of those who think Divje Babe is not a flute, but it should most definitely be kept. Anne Gilbert - unsigned edit by new editor Lagarvelho (talk · contribs)
  • I am in complete agreement with Anne Gilbert. Robert Henvell, Australia. - unsigned edit by new editor Henvell (talk · contribs)
  • Delete The article is interesting and certainly not offensive, but it appears to be written by Mr. Fink himself for the purpose of promoting his ideas and his publications, and thus to fall into the vanity category. I have not read these publications and have no opinion on their validity, but I note that many appear to have been self-published (Greenwych or Greenwich Publishers). We therefore have no idea if they underwent any sort of critical peer review, as all scholarly materials in conventional journals and books do. There are references elsewhere in Wikipedia to some of Mr Fink's ideas, and links to his personal website. Douglas Smith - unsigned comment by new editor 71.141.121.176 (talk · contribs)
    FYI: Fink was invited by Nature_journal to serve as a juror, for peer review, as an expert on ancient music. He was invited to write a rebuttal article in the peer-reviewed [proceedings] of a world archaeology conference Studies in Music Archaeology III, published in 2003. Another Fink article was published in the multi-lingual journal of the Study Group on Music Archaeology, Archaeologia Musicalis, 1988, also peer-reviewed, and also was cited in several articles in the MIT (Mass. Inst. of Technology) 2000 book Origins of Music; He also appears in Science magazine, Scientific American, and other peer-reviewed books, magazines and journals, in addition to Greenwich Publishers. See also book reviews -Candace 65.255.225.50 02:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. [23]. PJM 22:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenni Heiden

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 14:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

En Masse

edit

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix 14:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage wildlife forum

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mesa para dos

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 14:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infolab Enterprise Server

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by User:Markalexander100. - Mike Rosoft 19:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wurmpac

edit

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

Ah, gaming clan! It becomes clear from the subpages...-Colin Kimbrell 14:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal quest manufacturing

edit

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -SCEhardT 17:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stompalistics

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commonware

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto-Hamilton

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Logic

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanugrah

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Already redirected to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Deathphoenix 14:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ENFP

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mentoring

edit

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

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


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

The result of the debate was redirect. W.marsh 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weight Gain Fetishism

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - a Sin-full article. Allen3 - you do not need to bring nn-bios to AfD. -- RHaworth 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Sin

edit

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

The talk page reads: 

this is a page to write the biography of a form six hong kong student who has super-abilities 
to complete multiple tasks at hand and manage time efficiently. The page is primarily used to
promote the strong determination of this well-known student among the student community, so
others can learn from her example. the page will be soon updated with more information.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 14:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Lemos Clan

edit

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

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akanbar

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 14:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Akulov

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete (already archived properly now). Deathphoenix 14:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Andrew Brown/Archive2

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 14:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bumper sticker phrases

edit

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

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

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix 14:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Plaut

edit
  • Delete. Being featured on the news once or twice and having a blog does not constitute notability. Rory096 17:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A blogger who gets interviewed on television, and has multiple news articles done about her (carried internationally, both print and internet), and makes the front page of Yahoo! news is more notable than some of the Pokemon characters who have articles at your site; especially considering she had 800 daily visitors, before being interviewed. How many bloggers does the AP interview each year? I bet its a short list. Qasdd
  • Keep. I believe that having a Wikipedia entry could be beneficial for those who might have seen some of the recent publicity and who would like more information about the blogger. The article as it stands now doesn't contain very much information, but as others find the entry they can add more. The subject of the article has been told about the existence of this article, and she may very well have something to add to it. If there turns out to not be a need for this article, and no new information has been added for some time, then the article can always be deleted later. What does it hurt to keep it at this point, and just find out if there is a demand for it? Rainnede 18:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above keep votes. The arguments for keeping the article seem more convincing than the argument to delete. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable reports in media means she meets WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep surely notable as one of the few female cab drivers in New York RatherConfused 11:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although it needs attention. And although having a blog per se does not automatically connote notability, the fact that said blog - 1) is featured in AP, Yahoo News and Gawker 2) deals with a unique subject matter (life of a female new york taxi driver) 3) has received a lot of positive feedback from people in geographically diverse locations like New York, Texas, UK, Australia - means that it is notable.
  • Delete. Blogs, even popular blogs, have a tough hurdle to pass to claim notability because anyone can set one up and advertise one, and fleeting media interest isn't enough to assert lasting notability. —Cleared as filed. 19:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 06:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Salman Hamdani

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 15:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monetary, tax and capital budget reform

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 15:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otodus obliquus

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete, discounting socks. Deathphoenix 15:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution Media

edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • I guess you could suspect something when you look at the history, oner use has "voted" several times and a number of users has "voted" almost at the same time, but keep in mind that this is not a vote. Unless someone can provide a strong justifiaction for the article it must be deleted, as it is now is is not up to wikipedia-standards. --129.240.71.123 10:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are a lot anon, single-article voters here, but they're on both sides; the original nominator's only other activity was a spurious AfD nomination (w/some semi-related talk). This anon is another example -- no other editing activity, just a citation of a non-existent "not up to standards" criterion for deletion and a made-up claim that some special "justifiaction" is needed. Monicasdude 11:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and apparent meat/sockpuppetry. Stifle 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix 15:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Watch

edit

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCDe✉ 23:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George deskas

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Eragon. Deathphoenix 15:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasuada

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was redirect. W.marsh 05:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Poogly

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan H. Miller

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 15:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern realty

edit


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 15:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stravinskiism

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 15:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simpul Spel

edit

delete as original research.--M@rēino 17:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rennets

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Americans (ethnic group)

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12 Daily Pro

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G4). howcheng {chat} 18:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 Daily Pro

edit

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

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Thailand

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-ase

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kwon

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as easy non-notable bio. —Cleared as filed. 05:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baggas

edit

Delete as IMO it is a vanity article Slj 17:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 09:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deathproj

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Peters

edit

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

Copied from Talk:Henry Peters: I have not researched the guy to check verifiability I should think 17th century explorers, who discovered major finds, etc. are notable. If this is to be deleted, it should be via AfD process I should think. I'm checking verifiability to ensure not a hoax, but definitely not speedy material. --Hansnesse 02:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Increasingly, this article is looking suspicious. The Temple of Castor and Pollux seems to be in Rome, not Sicily. Moreover, it seems strange that an explorer would "discover" it so late in history. I could find no reference to "Henry Peters" in any database I checked. I withdraw my objection to deletion, although suggest it would be better as an AfD, in case I missed something. I will add a hoax tag as well. --Hansnesse 02:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not tag for speedy deletion. That was done by the anon ip 82.54.167.161 (contribs), see this edit. I was investigating the article when it was tagged for speedy and wanted to figure out what was going on before deletion. I put on the hangon tag and think this is the appropriate place. I am open to further investigation revealing this guy is real, but I don't see it. --Hansnesse 18:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User:86.128.100.73 (contribs) just posted a reference to "The Concise Dictionary of 16th Century Archaeologists (1852)." This book is not mentioned in OLCL (a worldwide catalogue of books), the US Library of Congress, Google or Google Scholar, Historical Abstracts (a subscription service), or Oxford University Library. It is impossible to rule out that this book exists, of course, but if this is the only source for verifiability, I think it is safe to say it is unverifiable. Particularly since the book (if it is indeed the source) got the location of the Temple of Castor and Pollux wrong, it would seem to be unreliable. --Hansnesse 01:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone produces strong evidence it is not a hoax. Merchbow 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Un sourced, and very unlikely to be anything other than a hoax or WP:NFT. Obina 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 09:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Badger

edit

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

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

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

Delete - bogus credentials. Following Google links leads to vanity pages and free e-mail addresses, not a characteristic of a genuine 'world expert' on anything. JanesDaddy 18:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 09:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carcasting

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toolstation

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Baarde

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of war heroes

edit

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doutzen Kroes

edit

A) trivial B) just plain bad

Out, dambed spot!

Maury 12:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal elitists

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 09:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GandhiCon

edit

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

Delete. I'm not about to help ESR push his idea of 'teh funnay'. RasputinAXP talk contribs 20:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, searches don't show even a bunch of "ESR's GandhiCon joke and subsequent explanation entertained the crowd at such-and-such banquet." Nobody but Raymond has used it in ways showing verifiable widespread influence. Just because he put his stuff in the Jargon File doesn't make it encyclopedically notable. Barno 00:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Zzyzx11 as a test page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen - Mod 251 - Group 4

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy userfy to Dclobbyist. Blatant advert / vanity. -- RHaworth 20:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The C. L. A. Group, LLC

edit

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

Speedied by RHaworth Monkeyman 20:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xmanager

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Health Wikispace

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla Press Slam

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 08:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mennen Co.

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Babajobu 08:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cnupedia

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G3, vandalism). howcheng {chat} 22:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footy Chicks

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rho Sigma, est. 1935

edit


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Starblind as an attack page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellery Queer

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prooftext

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llanllyfucocnoeth

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 01:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho Rambling

edit

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

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

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


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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 01:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susan_lindner

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 01:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauso

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 01:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insides Music

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. DES (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Like Girls

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDILY REDIRECTED. It's easy, it's painless, and you don't have to be an admin to do it! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virus of the Brain

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 01:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo Records

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple dwarf

edit

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

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

I've deleted it- patent nonsense. Markyour words 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is finished. It's Deceased. It's passed beyond the Event horizon. It's pushing up Daisys.
This is an Ex-Debate.
Georgewilliamherbert 03:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain overreact

edit

nn local band Adam  (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The adventures of Leah Chase

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Body odor solutions

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bongaigaon Refinery

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Freenet

edit

As per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, spam is not grounds for speedy deletion, and it must be voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. However, pages containing only a link to an external site can be tagged with {{db-nocontent}}, and so on. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:21, Feb. 2, 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 userfy --W.marsh 01:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dubie and Dave Sciuto

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deutschland class cruiser

edit

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

  • Keep, while "pocket battleship" is the term for the genre of the Deutschland-class, the class itself deserves an article as well, like all warship classes. If anything, pocket battleship should redirect to the class, but I don't think that's necessary. Lord Bob 21:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I mention above, Pocket battleship is an article about the class. --Yooden
I'm not quite sure how to express my opinion. Words are not forming in my brain. I shall try...while pocket battleship could be quite a reasonable article on the background and things, Deutschland class cruiser could be quire a reasonable article on the technical characteristics associated with class pages. In addition, if one should be merged into the other, it should be Pocket battleship into Deutschland class cruiser. Was I able to make sense that time? Lord Bob 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice plan. Currently however, Deutschland class cruiser is a subset of Pocket battleship, so it should go. Later on, the then single article can be named as it is deemed best. Currently we have three articles about the individual ships, two about the class and one category. Cleanup is required. --Yooden
Well, I don't mind an article about the class, but there are two, and one is a subset of the other.
No, only Deutschland class cruiser is a class article. Pocket battleship is a ship type article. Josh 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, and the ship type has exactly three ships, the same as the class. Don't you think it's a bit nit-picking to make a distinction here? Some quotes: "Pocket battleship(s ...) were also known as the Deutschland class", "The British began referring to the (Deutschland class cruisers) as pocket battleships" --Yooden
Why would you want one article about one specific nickname and one about everything else?
The nickname represents an interesting phenomenon, which it can be argued is worhy of an article to discuss. I would tend to agree, given the term's unique presence in naval history. However, it doesn't mitigate the need for the correct class article Deutschland class cruiser. 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The nickname is not worth more than a paragraph.
I don't mind what the article is called. At the moment, pocket battleship is a superset of Deutschland class cruiser; the latter is simply redundant. --Yooden
I wouldn't mind calling the one remaining article Deutschland class cruiser. In fact, given that all of you do your best to misunderstand me, I should've simply moved the content and redirect. (That's what you get for pleasing the rule fanboys.) --Yooden
The reason I submit my proposals to CfD or AfD is not to 'please the rule fanboys', but instead because I am not the only one with ideas on how to do things, and my ideas aren't always the best. This is especially true when dealing with subjects that aren't central to my own knowledge, but even on those I consider to be my forte it is helpful to get other's views. Intentionally making edits to circumvent the CfD/AfD process, especially when a vote like this has expressed that there is no concensus for what you are doing, is grounds I believe for administrative action. Josh 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So watch me not doing it until this is over. After that, however, I will start a new discussion on the two pages. And I really don't think that removing redundant information is grounds for administrative action. (To give you a head start: Please provide a list of information that is in Deutschland class cruiser but not in pocket battleship.) --Yooden
To qualify that: I know that rule are required, I only think rules work against Wikipedia in this case. The article is completely and completely obviously useless (so far no reason was given why it should exist), and I think work directly on the articles would have shown that in a much simpler way than this AfD. --Yooden
The Wikipedia article is a subset of the ship class? Please elaborate. --Yooden
RJH did say 'superset' not 'subset'. 'Pocket battleship' is a moniker applied by the British to the Deutschland as a counter to the German moniker of Panzerschiffe. The name could well apply to not only the Deutschland class, but also could apply to other similar German designs such as 'Cruiser P' and other designs that were not produced. None-the-less 'pocket battleship' is not strictly limited to the Deutschland even though in practice, it was the only class to actually be built that was called such. Josh 20:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, whatever, I was confused about whether he refered to the articles or the classes. Anyway, the nickname was only applied to the Deutschland and her siblings. --Yooden
  • Keep - pocket battleship should refer to the Deutschalnd class for the ship details, explain how the term came about - eg newspaper reports - and then comment on any modern day usage of the term. GraemeLeggett 10:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should, but it doesn't. So what's your point? --Yooden
That we shouldn't just redirect pocket batleship to "Deutschland class". GraemeLeggett 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so once again more slowly. Whatever Pocket battleship could be in our collective wet dream, at the moment it is a superset of Deutschland class cruiser. Even if it were different, the circumstances leading to the nickname 'pocket battleship' are hardly worth a paragraph. --Yooden
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 02:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universaltravel

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chromasoul

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lowrider (band)

edit

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

  • Keep. Lowrider has released one significant album, that has made some impact, with allmusic.com stating that it was "alternately praised and condemned profusely by critics" [34] and "Lowrider was hailed by many as the new Kyuss" which is definitely a good reason imho to leave this article as a part of the entire Stoner metal complex, which itself is obviously significant enough for WP. See the 'press section' of the bands label to confirm that hey have had signifcant press coverage [35]. If you have wishes or comments on how the article should be improved, I will gladly contribute what I am able to. --Johnnyw 00:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addition. Their split EP was a collaborative effort with Nebula, a band that was founded by 2 ex-members of Fu Manchu. --Johnnyw 00:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No complaints here if they really are notable (WP:MUSIC), it's out of love for the genre that I'm cleaning up the category. Obviously Nebula and Fu Manchu are sweet but each band has to be judged on their own merits... Debate remains open, get stuck in J... ++Deiz 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I'm more than satisfied that this will now become a much better article (and the first to admit that I screwed up the google criteria a little, although "148,000" should be qualified with the news that a very large proportion of those hits are nothing to do with this subject), happy to retract the nomination ++Deiz 02:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --W.marsh 01:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brykhon

edit

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

  • Done. Keep. One reference, at least to the name of the river, is in Hesychius' dictionary Greek Wikisource. I have yet to find the reference for the story with the Giants - but that seems plausible. Wait till I get to consult "Thesaurus Linguae Graecae" tomorrow. I'd prefer to move to "Brychon", btw, or is there a policy in favour of <kh>? Lukas (T.|@) 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I now find that the name is still/again used for a river even today; the Modern Greek name form is Βρύχωνας/Βρύχωνα. Lukas (T.|@) 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Vote Keep and move to Brychon as per Lukas above. James084 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --bainer (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side Seat Driver

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 01:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punky Mendoza

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 01:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Programs and Websites

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ConceptWiki

edit

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

Delete. Google gives 4 unique pages on the term. Neologism, original research. Can't make heads or tails of the story anyhow. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 01:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethtown (TV series)

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anson wu

edit

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

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle society

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter wong essay

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency childbirth

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Assyrian Revolutionist Society

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 00:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Ricker

edit

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

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 00:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Kabob

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

The result of the debate was "Geogre deleted "Woody's barbecue" (Predicate nominatives are not stubs; it is many different restaurants; article empty)" Adrian Lamo ·· 04:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woody's barbecue

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 00:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Gibson (filmmaker)

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 00:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Living Dead Man on Campus

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. — FireFox • T • 10:21, 3 February 2006

Chantelle Houghton and the Briefs Controversy

edit

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


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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 00:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of Lobsterboy

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wilkins

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Risoldi

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Job Turkey

edit

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

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 00:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regnard Kreisler Raquedan

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was already deleted; no need for further discussion. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afronasia

edit

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --W.marsh 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Door to the Zone

edit

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_2&oldid=1234127544"