Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 20

< February 19	February 21 >

Purge server cache

February 20[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 keep. Ifnord 16:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bozicevic Juraj[edit]

I found this article while cleaning out speedies. There is a substantial assertion of notability, but I cannot verify it as I don't read Croatian. I'm listing as a courtesy for the speedy tagger, so No vote. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete, not notable (I'm the "speedy tagger")
Delete unless somebody local can come and add some context. Guy 10:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founder of a college (Croatian Technical Academy of Technical Sciences.) --Ruby 14:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ruby. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable, if this is the same person (we need someone who can translate Croation [1] Avi 16:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I speak Croatian. That's an article about him. Only problem is I never heard of that Academy, and this guy (and I'm technology student). But, then again, I'm not the one to judge one's notability. --Dijxtra 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ruby - it is always better to err on the side of caution. If we discover at a later date that the source information is bogus, we can always renominate.
Comment: regardless of decision his name is Juraj Božičević. Btw, no Google.Scholar hit. Pavel Vozenilek 20:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a speedy; not even a delete. Marginally notable acadmeic. Change his name, too. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added a verify tag & living people cat -- doesn't mean I vote to keep it, but at least whoever is watchig over the living people (in a WP, not a religious sense) can deal with it. Carlossuarez46 20:15, 22 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 00:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special Agent Jon Zinger[edit]

This set of stories exists only on a personal webpage here http://sajonzinger.tripod.com/ --Ruby 00:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable reference to fictional work. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 00:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete somebody's fanfiction. Enough said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Aww, how cute, the official website is hosted on Tripod. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 91 hits on the official site. Seems to be a vanity advertising piece. VirtualSteve 01:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Ruby, AL, and Steve. --light darkness^(talk) 01:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. -- Greaser 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the stories are pretty funny, in William Hung kind of way. --djrobgordon 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Guy 10:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- Tvaughn05 _e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 10:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NG, Vancarlimospacecraft, Unencyclopædic, etc. Avi 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:00, 20 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 00:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Hart[edit]

Minor actress, a bit player at best. Non-notable. Was prod'ed but the tag removed. Calton | Talk 01:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Calton. -- Arnzy | Talk 01:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tough call but I vote delete at this stage unless better verification on site leads me to conclude otherwise but for now it seems she is more known for her work as a labourer/painter in the art department of movies - and then only as a small bit part. VirtualSteve 01:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -Is the younger sister of Melissa Joan Hart. IMDB page credits her with 3 titles. Is this notable enough for Wikipedia? I don't believe so. Can recreate page if she does more notable work. VegaDark 01:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In accordance with the Be Bold policy I turned this into a disambiguation page, the article formerly referred to the first Elizabeth Hart on the list. You can see that if you delete one Elizabeth Hart article there are three more potential Elizabeth Hart articles waiting in the wings. --Ruby 01:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll defer to my esteemed colleague above who must know what she's doing in regard to the actress or actresses named Elizabeth Hart. -- JJay 01:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: someone's created Elizabeth Hart (1). enochlau (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's cool about WP is you can back out anything. --Ruby 02:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of them appear notable to me. --Aaron 03:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as film stars with IMDB profile are notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stars, yes. This is not a star. IMDB is community-edited, I have an IMDB account too, existence of an IMDB profile is not evidence of notability, anyone can add one, contents of that article naming prominent roles in major features, is, since IMDB is pretty good on accuracy. Guy 22:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of her IMDb credits are in projects starring her sister Melissa Joan Hart. As a second choice, redirect to Melissa Joan Hart. I see that the article has been restructured since the AfD vote began, so as a third choice, revert back to limiting the article to Melissa Joan's sister Elizabeth Hart, because the other three actresses named Elizabeth Hart are even less notable. --Metropolitan90 05:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor bit player, and there are not, I think, four of them, it's just that she is not notable so has been added multiple times to IMDB - that's how it looks to me anyway. There are probably two of them, neither actually a major player. Guy 10:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Terence Ong. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --MacRusgail 17:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disambig pages often have live links - from what I've seen, this page has 3 dead links. The only link is to a non-notable bit part actress page. Non notable. --Jay(Reply) 00:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Anyone can get an imdb profile these days [2] - Hahnchen 11:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Nothing wrong with red links, as long as they are notable. But none of these appear to be particularly accomplished individuals. Probably also need to check Elizabeth Hart (1) as well, which looks to be spawned from this page. — RJH 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable rydia 04:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with impunity. Ban without reserve. gren グレン 04:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, extremely minor actress whose only real claim to fame is that she has a famous relative. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really nn --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:54, 22 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 00:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Grafton[edit]

This article was created by a GWB vandal. Although it is a televisin show, it has no google hits. It is also POV and all of its links are red (these people all have no Google hits either). There are no references or external links to verify any of this. Little notability is even asserted.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 01:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as A1 or A7. --Aaron 01:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. VirtualSteve 01:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Under-appreciated just abnout covers it: in fact I don't appreciate it at all. Guy 10:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Ruby 14:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 16:06, 20 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 Money. Mailer Diablo 00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concept of money[edit]

Wiktionary has an entry for concept of money. De-prodded with no other edits or cleanup. James084 01:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not an economist, but I thought it was improperly prodded. It seems like a concept that needs a explanation with examples, context in economic theory etc. It doesn't say on the prod page that you have to make an article perfect when you remove the tag and it seems there is something here that needs more than a dictionary definition. As a mere definition it is pretty useless to a layman, but properly expanded it might be a useful part of Wikipedia's coverage of economics. Calsicol 01:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has been transwikied word-for-word to Wiktionary:concept of money. Per WP:TL 1.1, the next step is to vote to delete via this AfD, and the closing admin should replace the page with the following boilerplate text: ''The contents of this page and the page's history have been moved to [[interwiki:Transwiki:Article Name]] via the [[m:transwiki|transwiki]] system, all future edits should go there.'' ~~~~ I concur. --Aaron 01:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Changing rationale for my vote per removal of Wiktionary article: Delete as failing WP:V. --Aaron 01:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The wiktionary entry appears to be a copyvio of the wikipedia article. Kappa 01:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? -- Jonel | Speak 02:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the GFDL requires the edit history to be preserved. Kappa 02:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. See wikt:Talk:concept of money. -- Jonel | Speak 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, I don't believe concept of money to have a distinct meaning from the sum of its parts. Will change my mind if evidence to the contrary can be produced. The wiktionary entry should go too. Kappa 02:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with Kappa on this article's place or lack thereof on Wikipedia. -- Jonel | Speak 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in as much as I understand the technicalities here. Guy 10:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It just says there is such a thing as a concept of money but doesn't tell us what it is --Ruby 14:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's been transwikied Avi 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to Money which does and should contain a discussion of the theoretical basis of money. That's what this article would have eventually come to contain, so its best to redirect to prevent this from being created in the wrong place in the future. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears the wikitionary article disappeared. --AySz88^-^ 22:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary deletion log -- Jonel | Speak 22:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - wikt:Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#concept_of_money (a well-deleted GFDL-compliant article ;) btw, now that Wiktionary has deleted, I agree with Savidan's redirect rather than standard Transwiki boilerplate.) -- Jonel | Speak 00:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - Cuñado - Talk 00:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I agree that a discussion of the theoretical issues with the standard definition of money (i.e., its function as a unit of account and the modeling shortcomings therein) would be best suited as a paragraph or so in the money article. (Maybe I'll even take a crack at it someday...) --Kinu ^t/_c 01:24, 23 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. Mailer Diablo 00:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Fox AX[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Fox_AX should be deleted. Star Fox Armada was always going to be a GameCube game. Even the articles at the bottom of the page corroborate this. The article offers no proof that there was ever going to be a star fox AX arcade game. They created the name Star Fox AX by stealing it from F-Zero AX. The poster shown as game art was merely an early version of Star Fox Assault for the GameCube, formerly known as Star Fox Armada. The only warrant that this was a arcade game was that it was worked on by Nintendo and Namco, however, Namco's flight sim development team, famous for their work on the Ace Combat series, were always developing this as a GameCube title. Thus, Star Fox AX never existed except in the mind of the persyn who created this Wikipedia page. Some info may be merged with the Star Fox Assault page but it is likely to be redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowflakePillow (talk • contribs) 20:29, February 19, 2006

Keep. See talk page. Thunderbrand 02:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Thunderbrand said, one of the links does confirm an arcade Star Fox game was being made. At the worst, the title should be changed to "Star Fox (arcade)" since I have seen no proof that "Star Fox AX" was an official name for the game. -- VederJuda 02:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article on something that never happened. Guy 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No vaporware articles --Ruby 14:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are no vaporware articles, then why is there an Indrema Phantom article? -- VederJuda 14:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Because I'm a busy girl and there's only so many hours in a day. --Ruby 16:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prediction. BrianGCrawfordMA 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VederJuda. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Guy Avi 16:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have articles for movies, games, and books which are announced. Are we just going to delete the ones for things that never happen? Most nintendo games that got to the stage of being announced are notable. Article contains interesting information, at least in my opinion. Star Fox 2, also unreleased, is also notable. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is argument by assertion. How can something which does not exist be notable? Guy 22:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Planet X and Global cooling are now generally agreed to have not materialized, yet both are notable, so that's "How ... something which does not exist [can] be notable". If it was notable in anticipation, it's still notable in causing the notable anticipation. --AySz88 ^-^ 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Ncsaint 23:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if renamed. Doesn't appear to be a hoax. We have many articles on unreleased games. I'm kind of teetering on whether this will ever get enough verifiable material, but I say we let this live and if the article won't grow much it can be then be merged. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with the important words being "announced but never released." --Jay(Reply) 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a real product in development and is important to the Star Fox series. This project should also be mentioned in the Triforce (arcade system board) article, I'm a little surprised it isn't yet. --Pagrashtak 04:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is anyone who is not a fan of the star fox series in favor of keeping this article? Ncsaint 22:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am a gigantic fan of the Star Fox series, but there is honestly no good proof that this game ever existed. The text of the entry is just generic stuff about the Triforce project. This game was, at best, thought about momentarily by Nintendo. It never got started; it is nowhere near Star Fox 2, and I remain convinced that it never existed. It should not be listed in the Triforce article either, because there is only one sentence anywhere on the entire internet to support its existence, and it was probably just a misunderstanding about Star Fox Assault (formerly Armada) for the GameCube.SnowflakePillow 04:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This IGN article cited seems to spring from a misunderstanding. Namco got the rights to Star Fox, but not for an arcade game. I can concede that perhaps the Star Fox Assault article could use a tiny footnote saying it may have begun as an arcade game on triforce hardware, but the name "Star Fox AX" certainly has no basis. Most of this article is mere summary discussing Triforce hardware, and there is only one sentence of "proof" from a conjecturing IGN article. There are a bunch more articles, but all that I found cited the IGN article as their basis for their outlandish extrapolations. I move that this article become a tiny footnote in Star Fox Assault so that true Star Fox fans like myself aren't worried that they somehow missed a game. Understand that my dislike for this article doesn't come from the fact that the game was never released; the problem is that unlike Star Fox 2 we have absolutely no information about it, so it just wastes space on Wikipedia. SnowflakePillow 04:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-ballism, vapourware, non-notable. Take your pick. Ifnord 16:53, 25 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 Redirected to Jay and Silent Bob by Adrian~enwiki (talk) Avi 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snootchie bootchies[edit]

possibly the least notable neologism ever savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: with 11,400 google hits ^[3], it's not even in the running for that status. Kappa 01:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With probably at least two other spellings with equivalent numbers of hits, I'd wager. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rewrite This actually is attributable to Jay and Silent Bob, so there is actually a smidge of truth to this, but the article is factually incorrect. (According to an interview with Kevin Smith it is essentially a way of saying something like "Nah, just kidding" without actually saying it.) I could also go along with a merge with Jay and Silent Bob. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 01:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, there is already a mention of this in the Etymology of Jay's Vocabulary section of the Jay and Silent Bob article, so I'll change to a full delete. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 02:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So next time someone types in "Snootchie bootchies" we should invite them to create a new article for us? Kappa 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jay and Silent Bob per scribbles. Kappa 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jay and Silent Bob given that it is a phrase used in the movies. It certainly doesn't warrant a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologistic, indiscriminate and barely notable. It's not spelled correctly either. -- Krash (Talk) 04:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jay and Silent Bob per Capitalistroadster: notable enough for a redirect but it doesn't need a main article (and certainly not this one). –Sommers ^(Talk) 07:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jay and Silent Bob. Notable catchphrase, but unlikely to be able to sustain its own article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redirected to Jay_and_Silent_Bob. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jay and Silent Bob Noochies.--Isotope23 14:45, 20 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French 75 (cocktail)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a cookbook. On the other hand, I don't know enough about drinks to say that this isn't a particularly noteworthy one, so I abstain. (Maybe move to wikibooks?) Vanigo 00:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks:Bartending:Cocktails (shaken). --Aaron 02:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to keep but verify/cleanup. Drink recipes are apparently acceptable on WP, and Wikibooks:Bartending is a giant mess and there's already a French 75 recipe there anyway. However, I can't help but notice that the Wikipedia recipe and Wikibooks recipe have wildly conflicting lists of ingredients and instructions, so we need to figure out whether or not our version meets WP:V. --Aaron 02:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The French 75 has a history to it, which I have found and added, so my vote is to keep this article. GeAm9111

Weak keep. Drink stub. Context and importance are currently weak. -- Krash (Talk) 05:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GeAm9111 --Ruby 14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'd rather have no recipies in the encyclopedia and all in the cookbook, but that is a pipe dream, I gather Avi 16:18, 20 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 non-notable club, contact attempt, WP:SNOW and possibly gaming the system. Guy 11:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheggie Party[edit]

Speedy Delete - There is already a similar article up for AFD. Same reasons as per in that AFD listed. -- Arnzy | Talk 02:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Recreated article in apparent attempt to bypass the AfD process. Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion. —ERcheck @ 03:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{db-club}}. -- Krash (Talk) 04:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all above if possible; delete otherwise per all above, and as a WP:POINT violation since it is likely created as a response to the previous AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, vanity. Guy 11:04, 20 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 00:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raxis[edit]

Non notable. Dragon Valor itself is only a stub. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 02:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jaxal1 02:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN gamecruft. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant Splette 10:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about a place in a game --Ruby 14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NG, Vancarlimospacecraft, Unencyclopædic Avi 16:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN. Ardenn 23:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 04:51, 25 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. Shanel 00:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African Caribbean[edit]

~~Delete.~~ This page is just a dictionary definition, and even at that is disputed. It was created Jan. 28 and has not been edited since that date (the dispute tags were added immediately and the creator of the page has not returned to address them.) Srleffler 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Afro-Caribbean. (Vote change Srleffler 01:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC).)[reply]
Delete could be more in the future but there is no encyclopedic content here as of now. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You wouldn't delete African-American would you? --Ruby 14:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- African-American has content.--Srleffler 17:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ruby. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to African reggae, which is probably what anyone who might end up on this page was looking for. ergot 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Afro-Caribbean. Guy 22:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afro-Caribbean. Doesn't stand as an article on its own. --Jay(Reply) 00:47, 21 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Khalifa[edit]

Prodded without comment. Article makes claim of notability as the Dean of the College of Business Administration at the Abu Dhabi University. Problem is that I was unable to verify this claim. I am remaining neutral for now pending further research. James084 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article, itself, links to an article on his appointment. As such, it is verifiable. Unless there are other issues to warrant an AfD (such as a notability), I think this nomination was hasty (though the prod really should have had a comment). --Karnesky 13:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Karnesky --Ruby 14:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Karnesky. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep claim eminently verifiable Avi 16:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the absence of any obvious reason to delete. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:16, 20 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 request for deletion was retracted by the nominator due to the precedence set in more recent Olympic games whereby every participating country, regardless of the number of participants, receives its own page. joturner 02:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand at the 2002 Winter Olympics[edit]

This article has no potential whatsoever. Thailand only sent one athlete to the 2002 Olympics; this clearly doesn't deserve its own page. joturner 02:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm tired of getting burned by voting to delete athlete articles, someone else can stick their neck out on this one --Ruby 02:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retracted per precedence set by country articles for the 2004 Summer Olympics and 2006 Winter Olympics joturner 02:47, 20 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 User withdrew nomination and article will be expanded beyond a dicdef. Avi 01:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting tubule[edit]

~~Wiktionary already has an entry for connecting tubule. De-prodded without comment or further edits. James084 02:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)~~ I am willing to withdraw my nomination as David Iberri (talk) has graciously volunteered to adopt this article to love. Thanks David!! James084 00:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable body part, per the comment in my edit summary. Kappa 02:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It might also help if you read the edit history before you AFD things. Kappa 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work but otherwise this is a keeper. VirtualSteve 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but definitely needs expansion. Thatcher131 04:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Connecting tubule (or connecting duct, as we call it here in the United States) is a small part of the exquisitely intricate and almost completely understood nephron. Although this article is a stub, there is a great deal to say about the role of this particular part of the nephron in the normal production of urine. Agree with above that the current article is not WP:PERFECT as is and could stand improvement. -ikkyu2 (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as a notable body part as per Ikkyu2. Capitalistroadster 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable body part. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While notable, WP:WINAD & this is nothing more than a dict. def. right now. --Karnesky 13:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anatomy article --Ruby 14:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless this is expanded, it is a dicdef which already exists in Wiktionary Avi 16:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - User withdrew and article will be expanded
Keep as Kappa for one is evidently intending further work on it. Guy 22:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to collecting duct system. The anatomy and function of the system's components overlap considerably, so they should be discussed in the context of one another. --David Iberri (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This idea has some merit. I could support it. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Apologies if this vote is obselete - someone approached me to add my view due to my involvement in the preclinical medical project. PhatRita 16:49, 21 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 Proclamation of Neutrality, or merge Proclamation of Neutrality to Neutrality Proclamation (either way is fine). Both articles have slightly contrasting text, so I'm going to apply the merge tags for someone more knowledgeable in the subject matter to perform the merge. --D e ath phoenix 05:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Proclamation[edit]

Delete, and possibly speedy. Page is redundant with Proclamation of Neutrality. Firestorm 02:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge although there may not be much to merge - this looks like a legitimate error and second editor should be informed to merge. VirtualSteve 03:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Proclamation of Neutrality. I would almost suggest that Neutrality Proclamation is more common. It would also be good if both versions were referenced and the article was longer. It is certainly a notable topic in American history. Capitalistroadster 05:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above --Ruby 14:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Capitalistroadster. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but I think Proclamation of Neutrality ought to be merged into Neutrality Proclamation as the latter is more common usage.—thames 20:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Ardenn 23:13, 20 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 00:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H2H Entertainment[edit]

Non-notable, only returns 40 hits on Google. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Aaron 02:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.psch e mp | talk 07:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ruby 14:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 16:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tvaughn05 _e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 20:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanispamcruftisement. Guy 22:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 04:52, 25 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 by User:Enochlau Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric wagliardo[edit]

Non-notable. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 02:56, 20 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 non-notable bio. —Cleared as filed. 06:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed El Sherif[edit]

Not notable person. The article ia about a media manager in a company and contains only 2 lines.--Wedian 02:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. JoshuaZ 03:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Treznor 03:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity at best - certainly not notable. VirtualSteve 03:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost speedy-able. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A7 and tagged as such since I really don't see an assertion of notability in that one sentence. Would be a delete regardless, of course. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:32, 20 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 00:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitology, Infinitist and Infinity Valued Logic[edit]

Neologism, 300 google hits, "manifesto" is on someone's ISP homepage. Was sent to PROD originally, but creator kept removing the prod tags. Delete all. enochlau (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. JoshuaZ 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the manifesto: "It happened to me one chilly night in September, 1979. Approximately three or four o’clock in the morn, Monday, September 24. I was high on acid and in the process of writing one of the most important and poignant scenes in my first novel." I think that says it all, don't you? Wikipedia is not for things you made up while tripping one day. rodii 03:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jaxal1 04:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I'm sure it made... an infinite amount of sense at the time. I'm mostly curious about "applied infinitology". -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three essays --Ruby 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Toss them all Avi 16:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rodii's extension of WP:NFT Guy 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above DaGizza^Chat ^© 07:46, 25 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 16:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community ownership[edit]

~~Wikitionary already has an entry for community ownership James084 03:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Update. When I checked earlier this evening Wiktionary did, in fact, have an entry for community ownership. This entry does appear to have been deleted. Therefore my nomination as stated above is no longer valid. However, I will nominate on the grounds that this is a dictdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. For now I am remaining neutral on the subject. I would like to see if the article can be expanded to something besides the dictdef that it currently is. James084 03:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, encylopedic concept which wiktionary does not, and should not, have an entry for. Kappa 03:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, as this certainly is a concept that deserves to be more than the dicdef it currently is. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat beyond a dicdef, if you find your nomination is no longer applicable there's much honor in withdrawing rather than hunkering down and plowing ahead --Ruby 14:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruby. I didn't say I didn't think my nomination was inapplicable. I think it is still a dicdef. I said the original reason for nomination was invalid. James084 14:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kappa. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep needs serious work Avi 16:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. PJM 04:54, 25 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 16:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Code signing[edit]

Wiktionary has an entry for code signing. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. James084 03:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was missing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot/C4, no point tearing it up. Also has an entry at pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term Kappa 03:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand: per Kappa. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More than a dicdef, potentially. Keep and expand'. --Calton | Talk 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand JoshuaZ 06:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just qualifies as a stub --Ruby 14:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. A valid topic; a stub that begins at the beginning. Smerdis of Tlön 15:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and expand A valid topic. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs serious work, but potential is there (cryptography stuff) Avi 16:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The problem is the such stubs remain stubs for long time. For red link someone may be more motivated to create full article. Pavel Vozenilek 20:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've often heard people speculate about redlinks motivating creation but there really doesn't seem to be any way to test this hypothesis. Users expand stubs all the time, too. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ditto, and with stubs even the newbies can participate. Carlossuarez46 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I'm expanding it right now. Guy 22:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now more than a dic def. Still needs a cleanup & expansion, but overall a good improvement. --Karnesky 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am expanding the article. Discussing when code signing should be used, how it works, and how it ensures that linux distributions manage to "work" dispite the fact they are often spread over a large number of insecure mirrors I think deserves writing up. Mrjeff 23:06, 23 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 00:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death of the Party[edit]

Delete this article on a webcomic which does not meet WP:WEB guidelines. Article was originally listed as a WP:PROD for lack of reliable sources and failure to meet WP:WEB, but PROD tag was removed by an editor who "think[s] it is notable enough especially since it's recognized by a Wikiproject." However, being tagged by our webcomics wikiproject isn't a notability statement; unless they somehow fall through the cracks, all webcomics-related articles are part of our webcomics wikiproject. And the article still has no reliable sources (I've been unable to find any in google or nexis) and still does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 03:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Campus cartoons are not noteworthy. Although the line: "apathetic to a point of religiosity" is so syntax gold. -- Greaser 06:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Greaser --Ruby 14:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 03:21, 22 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 00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Romana (Music)[edit]

Delete — Fails WP:MUSIC, Not notable. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 20, 2006, 03:29 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom, fails WP:MUSIC --light darkness^(talk) 05:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:MUSIC failure. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete VirtualSteve 08:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd hate to think of a future dab page for Pax Romana MLA 13:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one CD and plays the state fair circuit --Ruby 14:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G4. [4] Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ixfd64 07:46, 21 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 a non-notable organization. --InShaneee 04:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Untouchables (Kingdom of Loathing Clan)[edit]

Non-notable gaming clan. Prod tag was removed User:71.36.120.106 Cnwb 03:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm still amused by the members list, though... for example, click on Snuffles to see his (*ahem*) user page. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's funny... really funny... but Delete Georgewilliamherbert 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably Speedy - Nonsensical VirtualSteve 08:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn club --Ruby 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy NN group, gaming clan. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable online gaming group / {{db-club}}, and thus tagged. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Glowimperial 20:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all gaming clans. Guy 22:52, 20 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 00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Swingy[edit]

This was originally prodded without comment. It appears to be a neologism and does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. James084 03:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thought I had left a comment, but I don't see it in the history - in any event, this is clearly nonsense, gets about 70 Google hits, including some Wiki mirrors (far too low for a real pop culture term). Borderline speedy. BD2412 T 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Unverifiable and no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 20, 2006, 04:18 (UTC)
Delete: neologism. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable neologism. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:NEO, WP:NFT... take your pick. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Ruby 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:20, 20 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 00:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tal' Nerinn[edit]

Probably fan fiction. Google search shows nothing relating to this guy. Delete. BryanG 03:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fan fiction, or so minor a character it slips completely under the radar of Star Wars nerd obsession. -- Saberwyn 04:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 20, 2006, 04:27 (UTC)
Delete' More starwars fancruft. JoshuaZ 06:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whether it's a hoax or fancruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ruby 14:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this is fanfiction or anything like that, I think it's someone's Star Wars Galaxies MMORPG player character. Either way, it's a definite delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since it doesn't say where the character is from, it makes no claim of notability. And it's almost certainly fake.-LtNOWIS 03:21, 21 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 00:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Poll Land[edit]

Non-notable gaming community. Prod tag was removed by User:71.253.55.228 Cnwb 03:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jaxal1 04:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Blue520 05:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Magical delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. neither magical or delicious. psch e mp | talk 07:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Goodbye! VirtualSteve 08:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn club --Ruby 14:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A forum guild on Gaia Online. Not even one of the biggest ones. Delete. -- Saberwyn 20:27, 20 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 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Girl[edit]

The vast majority of this article is an attack of a San Francisco stereotype, and as such violates WP:NPOV. Verifiability of the content is limited as well, unless a rant posted to Craigslist counts. I'm skeptical that the article could be rewritten in a way that would be encylopedic and NPOV. The essay used to be a part of the Marina District, San Francisco, California; given the number of bloggers that were so enchanted by that content appearing in Wikipedia, I anticipate a strong showing of meatpuppets. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 03:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. Oh no! It's Chonga for the Left Coast! — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 20, 2006, 04:25 (UTC)
Lovely. A collection of shallow stereotypes mashed together to form a pseudo-encyclopedia article. Delete per nom. --Calton | Talk 05:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 06:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bill W., who took the words right out of my mouth. (Will we see the same level of sockpuppetry on this AfD too? Stay tuned!) --Kinu ^t/_c 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would infact vote to keep it and overhaul it, possibly myself, if any of the references referred to the subject matter in question. So, I vote delete in spite of the numerous pejorative terms that exist out there and are NPOV. -- Greaser 06:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. Wigger and Yuppie are good examples of how articles about a stereotype can be reasonably encylopedic and sourced. This is probably too isolated to have any chance of verifiability. A search limited to "sfgate.com" returns two articles; one mentioning the term in passing, the other talking about the description that used to be in the Marina District, San Francisco, California article. I couldn't find anything in the Guardian or Examiner. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References added which discuss Marina stereotypes from SFWeekly and Guardian. Still very local to San Francisco.

Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-verifiable per nom, and comments by Ohnoitsjamie are on-target re difference between this and a term in wide use like 'yuppie'. --Lockley 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOV violation. This article seems more of a bitter rant than an encyclopaedic essay on the subject. (aeropagitica) 07:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this rant becomes a socio-psychological phenomenon of standing it could be encyclopedic - but it is not even close to that now. VirtualSteve 08:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV with no significant verification that there really are such things as Marina girls --Ruby 14:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and enter now one of the inconsistencies of Wikipedia. Marina Girl strikes me as an insufficiently notable neologism because it's colloquial and unlikely to spread -- ie, it loses meaning away from the marina & SF. Also, I'm from SF, and have never heard it. That said, if this were an Internet colloqualism, we might elect to keep it, because terms on the net can be just as niche, but cross a broader strata of readers and users because of the noncentralized nature of such. This is something we'll have to figure out how to work with eventually. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks. Guy 22:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure that this just got run through a previous AfD very recently (last week?), and got deleted (note that it's recreated in the last couple of days). I'm sure digging around can locate the ref. Georgewilliamherbert 23:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Not a WP member, not author, not affiliated, no vested interest) Anecdotal : This is a very common term with my social circle (No, not Mission District! Not even SF.). Unless it's being included in travel guides though, it will lose relevance beyond the SF Bay Area. I don't see a huge difference between Marina Girl and Essex Girl wrt concept. Essex girl (looks like this is an expansion on Essex Girl - clearly one of these needs editing) is a specialization of Chav and Dumb blonde, as Marina Girl is a specialization of Yuppie. The Chronicle or Examiner wouldn't dare address this phenomenon by name - their readership levels are already dangerously low, and that would probably lose them 10% of their readers. More references would better the article, I agree. Please, visit the Marina. It's funny.

I have a few links for consideration (for varifiability purposes) :

SF Weekly [5] San Francisco Magazine [6] and a SF Chronicle article that uses the term [7] Calbearspolo 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Calbearspolo[reply]

KEEP - This explanation of Marina Girl holds true not just for SF, but any area near the water including westside areas of Los Angeles (Santa Monica, Venice, Manhattan and Hermosa Beach, Orange County in general) and San Diego. The writer of this article is so accurate it's scary. I wager that most of the people who want this removed is because it hits too close to the truth....and they can't handle the truth...or laugh at life.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.98.50 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-24 11:27:42

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SILVANO TOGNERI[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you think people came to this page because a friend asked them to do so, or because they saw a message on an online forum asking them to do so, please note that this is not the case.

Posting notices about ballot stuffing is presumptuous. If you find credible evidence of ballot stuffing, by all means please share.

Non-notable bio. James084 04:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From listening to the mp3, seems to be Italy's (non-notable) answer to Wesley Willis.OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fungi hunter? seem extrememly local. nn. psch e mp | talk 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fungi hunter that has mushroomed - wow if these editors put the same effort into encyclopedic articles - oh what colour would be added. But for now well this article printed would make good compost. VirtualSteve 08:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this name has 19K google hits at first glance, 18900 of them disappear if you -site:barganews.com. Thus, notability, if any, is very local. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Adrian --Ruby 14:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Adrian's fun Google results. Notability is, shall we say, dubious. Lord Bob 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Short sightedness to Outsider Art is a common position that many easily take without starting to understand the first principle concept of its foundation. Far from non/notable Silvano has international acclaim from leading Jazz composers. Wikipedia is about knowledge of all for all. Not knowledge fascim by a few close minds dictating content control in order to not understand. Just because YOU don't like or understand his music does not mean others will. Keep this article. --RAW 08:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: to User:Rawcut -- I'm open to hearing about verifiable evidence of international acclaim that I might have missed. If you have it, please provide it -- don't just assert that it exists. While we all like to assume good faith, we get people telling us how wrong we are on a regular enough basis that it's impossible to just take it at face value and say "Oh, this guy thinks he's notable? Kept!" We'd never delete anything at that rate. So, I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, but please cite sources if they exist. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to verify any claim to notability. Derek from the Frog and Frigate had a successful career based on singing in bars, but he's not notable either. Guy 23:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Silvano Togneri is a musician of great distinction whose adroitness is held in high regard in the international music world. I am not aware of the measuring tools used to determine notability, but I was saddened to see that on Wikipedia, a site I hold in high regard, Togneri's article might be destined for deletion. "Those works created from solitude and from pure and authentic creative impulses - where the worries of competition, acclaim and social promotion do not interfere - are, because of these very facts, more precious than the productions of professions." - Jean Dubuffet. Validusername 23:58, 20 February 2006

Comment There is a fine line between "outsider art" or "art brut" and "exploitation." The exploitation debate surround Wesley Willis as well. However, Willis's verifiable popularity easily satisifies WP:Music, whereas Silvano does not. Furthermore, no one has produced any actual quotes from notable jazz musicians (or anyone else notable) praising Silvano. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 16:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I have downloaded a few of his songs and have even met someone who’s brother has actually seen him live. Yes, he is very outsider but the net is currently buzzing with thousands of remixes of his songs. It has become a sort of internet remix craze. Some of the better mixes have been played in a nightclub in Liverpool. We may end up with one of the remixes being quoted in wiki but not the original!!--Deety 08:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete See Talk:SILVANO_TOGNERI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barganews (talk • contribs)
Do Not Delete Wikipedia is about information which is not main stream. The suggestions to delete this entry are on the grounds of taste only. To also suggest deletion of this entry on the grounds of someone's mental ability would also been seen as illegal in many countries. I live in Sofia Bulgaria but I am aware of Silvano Togneri as my brother is a travelling muscian who has played Barga Jazz festival and informed of the wonderful outsider art which is promoted in the Tuscan town of Barga. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.8.60.62 (talk • contribs) .

Comment Wikipedia is based on established notability, which this subject lacks. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 16:57, 22 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 00:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Brooks[edit]

Prodded, removed and replaced with speedy tag, re-prodded in error by me. Not a speedy, although claims to notability are tenous. Link to own site with "can be booked at" smells of advertising. Recomend deltion unless greater claims to notability are shown. brenneman ^{T}^{L} 04:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. James084 04:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Obvious ad for her website Fan1967 05:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. Not a speedy as there are claims to notability. Capitalistroadster 05:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom.psch e mp | talk 06:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well - this artice deserved to be busted Delete. VirtualSteve 08:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Monicasdude 14:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Capitalistroadster --Ruby 14:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yuk. I can't believe they made me click that link. Why do people do that to themselves? Guy 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BAH! I clicked on that link too... Gawd... Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 04:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The scary thing is the text that says she's planning additional implants to make them larger. Uggghh. Fan1967 15:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Has potential to become notable in the genre (see Ewa Sonnet) but too early in the game; can always be recreated if she starts making videos or appearing in more magazines. That comment about the additional implants is probably just nonsense since it's unsourced. 23skidoo 15:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the comment about the additional implants is from her own website. Also from her website, it appears her main occupation is, uhh, how to put this, personal appointments. Of all the things Wiki is not, you'd have to include ads for personal services. Fan1967 16:11, 23 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 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. Tam sessions[edit]

Duplicates material found in the article for the film Serenity and has little chance of growing further. Delete and redirect. - EurekaLott 04:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. really trivial. psch e mp | talk 06:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. I am planning to expand this beyond what belongs in the Serenity article. The Wookieepedian 09:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Googling "R. Tam sessions" brings up 1,250,000 results.[8]The Wookieepedian 10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: when googling you need to use quotes or you get tons of unrelated hits. With quotes ~600 hits.
Keep, fairly notable aspect of the unique Serenity marketing campaign. Actually has lots of room for expansion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest a new strategy: Let The Wookiepedian Win. --Ruby 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm also saying keep it, since I came by more or less at random and would've probably missed it on the main Firefly page. Need expansion/completion thou. --rotane 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it appears to be independently notable. --Karnesky 23:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Just spent the past 30 minutes reading up on this from the links. Deserves it's on page. --Wynler | Talk 17:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, assuming completion. -b 06:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I'd like to see some WP-reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I LIKE the idea of letting the Wookiepedian win. — CJewell (talk to me) 20:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wookiepedian. --Vanis314 2:52 25 Feburary 2006 (UTC)
Keep, as it is a rather notable part of the Firefly machine, as well as a little piece of work onto itself. --Bacteria 19:42, 25 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 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun 100[edit]

Delete. Previously speedy-deleted and subsequently recreated. No mention at Allmusic, Amazon, Google. This band has absolutely no claim to notability. -- Krash (Talk) 04:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - CSD G4, recreation of deleted material. --light darkness^(talk) 04:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fun 100 easily fits into the confines of WP:Music. They are on the two Canadian national college charts (links are in the article). They have gone on two Canadian tours. They have been featured in music media, again, sources are named and linked to. They placed second in the biggest music competition in Vancouver, Shindig. Only one of those criteria must be met for a subject to be eligible for an article. How is this even an issue? This is not just the same information as before, more information has been added and sources cited. JonnyChance 05:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find that any of the sources satisfy WP:V or WP:RS. -- Krash (Talk) 05:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Speedy tag has been removed by myself -see the talk page. If a band is deleted and subsequently qualifies or claims qualification under WP:MUSIC, it is not eligible for G$ which only applies to articles which are substantially the same. They have made the college charts in Canada just below Franz Ferdinand and have completed two tours. They are notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep VirtualSteve 08:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I think I'll have to scrub my skin with lye after I say it. There is a lot of bandity in Wikipedia, and I have never heard a single good song on campus radio in my life, but they still cut it. Yes, they're notable. They're verifiable. I will now light myself on fire. Lord Bob 18:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, chart links: !earshot - Top 200 of Dec 2005, Top 200 of Nov 2005 Top 50 for week ending: Feb 7, 2006, Nov 8, 2005, Nov 29, 2005, etc.. (I wont bother listing the 40 others..) nkife 05:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chart, Earshot and CBC Radio 3 are all sufficiently major music media to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. Not a band I've ever actually heard of, personally, but the sources all check out. Keep. Bearcat 06:28, 25 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 Robert Moog. D e ath phoenix 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moog records[edit]

Delete as nonsense, unverifiable, original research. Neologism. -- Krash (Talk) 04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Moog records. -- Krash (Talk) 14:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved relevant text to Robert Moog and I hope interested editors will have a look. I continue to contend that "Moog records" is a protologism. In an attempt to reach consensus, I suggest and support merge and delete. -- Krash (Talk) 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Robert Moog. This type of record does exist, and is mentioned in historical interviews with Robert Moog. Doubtful there is enough info for it to be its own article, thus the merge. psch e mp | talk 05:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I know there's a lot of vinyl with "Moog" in their titles. But there is no "Moog records" genre, thus making this original research. And why clutter Robert Moog's biography article with this stuff that has very little to do with him? -- Krash (Talk) 05:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into "Moog synth in culture" section of Robert Moog. Definitely not nonsense; I've heard of these records (though I'm not sure if it could be called a "genre.") OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the whole article needs to be merged into Robert Moog, but it's worthy of mention (a sentence of two) that the Moog inspired these types of albums for a short period of time. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 70's kitsch, like mood rings and pet rocks --Ruby 15:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kitch has never been a criterion for keeping an article. -- Krash (Talk) 15:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This was a minor fad that didn't last very long. Any needed mention of it should go to Robert Moog. My own recollection is of a bunch of "Switched on" titles ("Switched on Bach," "Switched on Santa") that were in the record store remainder bins within a year or so. Fan1967 19:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete per Krash. Better off as a paragraph in the Moog article than a separate article. Fan1967 14:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but I'll change my vote if someone can verify that several professional music critics/papers have used this term to refer to the genre. — ciphergoth 21:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Moog Cookbook because anyone who can make Green Day's Basket Case sound like the St. Elsewhere theme song and uses a Speak & Spell as an instrument is OK in my book. Plus, it's conceivable that someone could come here looking for their discography and type Moog records.--Isotope23 21:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I interest you in this slightly used copy of Genetic Engineering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

Definitely not, but a redirect to Robert Moog seems sensible. — ciphergoth 00:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a redirect to Andy Moog. I'm sure he holds a few records for goaltending...--Isotope23 14:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, worthwhile content has already been merged. Someone can leave a redirect here to Robert Moog if they are so inclined.--Isotope23 14:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I can't definitely recall having heard the term before, but a quick Google found several references: [9] [10] [11] [12]... so it seems to me that it's the kind of thing someone might want to find out more about, and thus deserves an entry. --Woozle 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RS? -- Krash (Talk) 02:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even the Google hits for "Moog records" - which is surely a biased sample - yields pages which seem to use the term interchangeably with "Moog music", "Moog albums" and many other near-synonyms. From which I conclude that this exact term isn't widely used. Contrast with a term like "synthpop" which is far more widespread than any near variant. — ciphergoth 03:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of countless, tiny, fads. Such as popular songs played by orchestras, accordions (or other ethnic/niche instruments), classical songs with ocean sounds, etc, etc. Crap you see in the bargain bin. A mention in the Robert Moog article is all this really needs. --fataltourist 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into "Moog synth in culture" section of Robert Moog. More noteworthy than most musical fads, disagreeing with Fataltourist. I would vote "keep" if there were sources more authoritative than those shown so far. Barno 19:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge and redirect per Barno --Mmeinhart 05:29, 28 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 Marudubshinki at 06:41, 20 February 2006 Reason: (fanon.) --light darkness^(talk) 07:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aloy-Wan Kenobi[edit]

This avoids speedy delete only because I don't know enough about Star Wars to be sure there isn't some character with this name. Looks like it's just some kid with a light sabre and severe delusions. DJ Clayworth 04:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless fancrap.Jaxal1 04:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax --Ruby 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also shrunk that unbelievably annoying image. Chick Bowen 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you. Jaxal1
Delete. definate hoax. psch e mp | talk 05:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above and reprimand Aloy-Wan Kenobi for repeatedly removing the AfD tag. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JoshuaZ 06:19, 20 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 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The News Line[edit]

Notability debated. Moved to AfD. Jaxal1 04:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently this article is "a candidate for speedy deletion" because it may be "an article about a real person or group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject (CSD A7)". I don't know what that pseudolegalistic tripe is supposed to mean (and I don't much care), but Wikipedia cannot be only about things that "are important or significant", for two reasons: firstly, "importance or significance" is a subjective judgement which can't be legislated for in any sane system, and secondly if we still intend to create the greatest encyclopaedia there has ever been then we need articles about everything under the sun, and there are plenty of things under ther sun that aren't important or significant. But never mind that. The need for this article arises because several other articles link here, and the context of the links doesn't always make it clear what News Line actually is. The best way for a reader to find out what The News Line is, is to click on the link and read the stub. Also, this is a very remarkable publication. Not so much for what it says, but simply because it continues to come out, day after day and year after year. A teeny-tiny political sect produces a daily newspaper. A real one, with TV reviews and sports results and colour pictures and columnists and everything. How do they do it? Where does the money come from? Apparently, at one time there were two rival WRPs each producing its own rival daily News Line! It's a great subject for a wikipedia article. We need to know more! GrahamN 03:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, phrases like "does not assert the importance or significance of the subject" are the result of attempts to find a way to quickly get rid of things like high school clubs and bands - we get a lot of newbie articles about them. Kappa 04:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, daily newspaper. Kappa 05:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. exisiting, functioning paper. psch e mp | talk 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. JoshuaZ 06:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Daily media publications are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. PJM 04:55, 25 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 deletionificationized. DS 16:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besterest[edit]

Creator seems to have mistaken Wikipedia for Urban Dictionary. Slang dictdef. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable slang dicdef neologism. -- Krash (Talk) 04:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom. Neologism. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 20, 2006, 05:04 (UTC)
Delete per nom. pretty clearly slang dicdef.psch e mp | talk 05:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Chairman S. | Talk 07:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen a lot of dumb articles before but this is even dumberer --Ruby 15:01, 20 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 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts on Fire[edit]

Nonnotable church youth group. Also reads like advertising and vanity. Indrian 04:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 27 google hits, one of them wikipedia, nothing showing notability. So more than one church uses this program? that doesn't make it notable. Article *does* read like an advertisement also. psch e mp | talk 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 27 google hits? I didn't know it was possible to get that few. JoshuaZ 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no Alexa rank for their website, and only five youth pastors, this is small potatoes --Ruby 15:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. Guy 23:14, 20 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 nomination withdrawn. Chick Bowen 06:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Rutterford[edit]

Tagged as Speedy deletion, but not a speedy candidate, since it contains an assertion of notability (worked on well-known films and videos for well-known bands). Listing here for discussion. Not vote. Chick Bowen 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already an article for him as "Alex Rutterford". sorry about this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicwax (talk • contribs)

Indeed. Withdrawing nomination, will redirect. Chick Bowen 06:30, 20 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, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Quartet[edit]

Completely unverifiable, biased, reads like the creator's entry to a contest, as well as a text dump. Most damning of all, I see no attempt at asserting notability. Delete. Mak emi 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to meet notability standards. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 google hits for search criteria " Chris Lynn" "seasonal quartet". nn. psch e mp | talk 06:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unduly long, "disquieting" article. I'm "rueful" that it has to sit out a full AfD. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ruby 15:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. Guy 23:15, 20 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, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films based on books categories[edit]

The article is one big self-reference. - EurekaLott 06:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. psch e mp | talk 06:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-referential, redundant with the top category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a wikiproject which is already mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books -- Astrokey44|talk 12:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Ruby 15:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant per category ;-) Guy 23:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. *drew 13:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Well-meant effort by project participant to provide easy access at many levels...but ultimately unnecessary. Her Pegship 01:37, 22 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 Mushroom as a recreation of previously deleted content (csd-g4). - Bobet 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universist movement[edit]

Previous votes: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism 2.

delete. nonnotable pseudoreligion. mikka (t) 06:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom TheRingess 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God, not again. KILL IT! KILL IT NOW! --Calton | Talk 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. delete per nom. psch e mp | talk 07:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4 Recreation of deleted material. --Aaron 08:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Drat. You beat me to it. I was too busy applying the tag to list it here! Speedy. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: may not be suitable for speedy deletion. Talk:Universist movement says 'Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, on keeping the Universist Movement article on Wikipedia: "If it is indeed true that this was featured in the New York Times, Fox News, the BBC, then I would vote 'keep' on a VfD myself."' It now claims to have been featured in the LA Times. [13] --Henrygb 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, well their claims of being featured in the New York Times turned out to be bogus, so I'd take anything they said with a Costco-sized grain of salt. --Calton | Talk 11:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, com to think, what you post has nothing to do with Speedy criteria -- substantially the same material being re-created. If they want to argue that they're notable NOW, have 'em take it up with deletion review. --Calton | Talk 12:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are claims that this movement has been featured in significant media. As far as I can tell, these claims have not been verified so I vote to Delete unless verifiable evidence is produced. Capitalistroadster 11:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(for historical record:) As of today this "world religion" gives 452 unique google hits for "universism" and 345 for "universist". mikka (t) 22:11, 20 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 01:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE FORGOTTEN BIRDS OF Lloyd Lake (San Francisco)[edit]

Article appears to be a duplicate of Lloyd Lake (San Francisco). Author on crusade to raise bird awareness, so article appears rather pov/opinion/original research too. --OscarTheCat ^talk 06:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, perfected stated. --light darkness^(talk) 07:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blatant POV fork. Note that the author, User:Avianluvr22, is also using the original article (which apparently he created) to suit his own agenda. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On that note, I'll say that my vote extends to Lloyd Lake (San Francisco) if that gets lumped into this AfD... which it should, since it's essentially the same soapbox-type article, and would be easier to recreate from nothing if Lloyd Lake deserves an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV agenda pushing. psch e mp | talk 07:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, and tagged as {{db-club}} with clarification "a flock is a kind of club, and nothing in CSD says the club members must be human ..." Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, POV. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a forum for conservation advocacy --Ruby 15:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I must say that the author's assertions that the birds have a "lackadaisical attitude" and "razor sharp wit" made me smile. It might not be encyclopedic, but at least it's interesting and a good read. Still delete though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the birds are clearly not forgotten. Guy 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NPOV. Stifle 22:56, 21 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 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Khoo[edit]

An article on a school student who won an award, admittedly an important one, but this is still a non-notable bio which is classified as vanity. The kid hasn't achieved nearly enough notability to warrant an article, and while Hamedog has done a great job with his school's article, writing an entry on a fellow student goes beyond what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Harr o5 07:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . This guy was the best student in the whole of WA. He's obviously going to do well . Soak it up Khoo. JB

Delete. No doubt he's an excellent student, but getting high marks on exams (even getting very high marks on a number of exams and winning a notable student award) doesn't really make an individual notable in an encyclopedic sense. Really, I think an abbreviated biography of him should just be merged at Beazley Medal. Khoo seems on a track for great things in this life, but let's wait till he finishes university and then we can judge his accomplishments in the real world.--Pharos 07:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pharos abakharev 07:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Needs to grow up. --Ghirla | talk 07:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Splette 10:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "An article on a school student" - he has finished school and is at university. --Hamedog^Talk|@ 10:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only needs a mention at Beazley Medal -- Astrokey44|talk 12:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agnte 13:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable for high-school achievements, and as Hamedog says, he's all grown up now --Ruby 15:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only finished school in November 2005. Not quite all grown up yet - not at legal age to vote.--Hamedog^Talk|@ 08:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uni student who did well at school. However, doesn't meet WP:BIO as yet. Capitalistroadster 18:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smart kid. He'll do well one day. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 04:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khoo was an excellent student no doubt but he hasnt really acheived anything in the real world. Even if you do have excellent grades and do well in exams it doesnt mean you will be a success in the future. I disagree with every ones opinion of him. All the outstanding men and woman in the current world have their succeses based on luck and not acedemics... although it is helpful it will be chance and luck that will bring success. Dont worry the people who are not bright or acedemically inclined, you still have the same oppitunitys as Adrian Khoo. By the way HE MIGHT DO WELL. NOT WILL........ Summited by MMS
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 19:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Delete. --Roisterer 08:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 13:04, 21 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, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Gavin (a/k/a "Bali" James)[edit]

Does not clearly establish notability. There are some notes on the talk page about an alleged connection to Schapelle Corby, but it's not clear that they will be notable and verifiable. –Sommers ^(Talk) 07:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio, and don't put "AKA" in the title of articles --Ruby 15:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but don't bite Asingleton-green for not using our naming conventions, it's their first attempt at a new article. Leith p 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between this guy and Schappelle Corby is that is plenty of verifiable information about her and none about this guy. I tried to add him to the list of Australia related articles but the unorthodox naming defeated my attempt. Delete. Capitalistroadster 17:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy if wanted, pending further work. Right now it's hard to verify any claim of notability. Guy 23:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave this up. It's very interesting and focuses on a generation that merits recording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.44.44.11 (talk • contribs)
Delete or userfy, per Guy. Stifle 22:56, 21 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 01:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandaliotis[edit]

De{{prod}}ed because someone on the talk page seems to be asserting verifiability; I thought I'd let AfD decide. No vote. GTBacchus^(talk) 07:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable mix of fact and fiction. But I can be convinced to change my vote by a bit of WP:V — the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This is a peculiar one. The SCIFI novella seems genuine. Googling for Sandaliotis Ichnusa gives valid results. But most of the rest of the article can't be found on google. I'm thinking 25% fact, 75% hoax. The last two sections sort of give it away though... Weregerbil 11:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax per last paragraph --Ruby 15:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Tvaughn05 _e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 20:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ravedave 01:49, 23 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 will make them redirects though.Shanel 03:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Klug, Kimmi Kappenberg, Hunter Ellis, Sarah Jones (reality tv star), John Carroll (Survivor contestant), Ghandia Johnson, Ryan Aiken[edit]

Delete - everyone except for Hunter Ellis and clean up Hunter Ellis. As for everyone else, the same reasons for the other listed survivor contestants in this nomination apply here. ~~Not enough information on most of them, and~~ The rest are not really notable as articles. Information about ~~those~~ the non-notable contestants should only belong in their respective contestant pages, not in wikipedia - Arnzy 08:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (Amended vote:-- Arnzy | Talk 01:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete - non notable Tawker 08:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep, ~~fictional~~ characters viewed by a large audience. Kappa 11:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Babajobu 07:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nn. --Aaron 08:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all while there are several paragraphs for most of these, almost all the info is non-notable stuff like "Currently single, she lives with her cat, Abbi, while her other three cats, Bart, Sasha and Meow, and her twin Shih Tzu dogs, Till and Fieval, live with her parents." [14] -- Astrokey44|talk 12:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vote em all off the island --Ruby 15:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. -- Krash (Talk) 18:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Saberwyn 20:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup Hunter Ellis, no vote on Sarah Jones, delete ~~all~~ all others, biographies of insufficiently notable people, no hope of encyclopedic expansion. Barno 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (changed vote Barno 14:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Jones and Ellis, who are independently notable (for posing in Playboy (magazine) and hosting shows on The History Channel, repsectively). Merge the others to the relevant season of the show. -Colin Kimbrell 05:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Possible Copyvio on Kimmi Kappenberg's article as it seems to be cut and pasted from her official contestant page. -- Arnzy | Talk 11:38, 24 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 01:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Shit Music[edit]

De-prod-ed because someone was working on sources. I thought, why not let AfD decide? No vote. GTBacchus^(talk) 07:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Forum-cruft. --light darkness^(talk) 07:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is IDM but I never heard of ISM and I'm into e-music --Ruby 15:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a real genre. Really real. Kungpowbetty 14:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)preceding comment by User:130.157.62.76 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. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mullet (jewelry)[edit]

This is an advertisement for a non-notable product/website. Dave 08:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant spamcruft. -- Arnzy | Talk 08:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom psch e mp | talk 09:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Ruby 15:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for god's sake. this page is sort of incomprehensible. perhaps a description of the product or a photograph might help, but i doubt it. good for a laugh, though. Asarkees 00:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Interesting idea. How many guys use Viagra & have a problem taking it on a date. I know I've experienced this. If the user gets rid of the spam ie: URL / Then why not allow it. It's pop culture. After all we allow MulletFan, etc., which are commercial entities.
Don't Delete Ha! What an idea. I need one of these. I copied the photo & gave it to my jeweler. I hope he can make me one.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 attack page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe becker[edit]

Speedy Delete - as per {{db-nonsense}}. I've put this up for speedy before, but author keeps removing tags -- Arnzy | Talk 08:37, 20 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 05:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward turtle[edit]

Nonsense or a hoax CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del nonnotable yet fad. mikka (t) 09:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Link even look like a hoax. psch e mp | talk 09:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete On what grounds is it a hoax? If people do it, as the article states, and in the places the article states -- colleges across the country -- and a good deal of widely varied sources refer to it, what makes this a 'hoax'? Unsigned by User:Warnthepenguins
Delete. Nonsensical. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 10:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as non-notable gesture. Seems quite real, see the newspaper article. Also googling for awkward turtle hand finds a few blog-type descriptions of this. But notability seems to be lacking if the same standards are applied as to neologisms. Weregerbil 11:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Do not delete' The Awkward Turtle does happen accross the country on college campuses; just last weekend I visited a friend in Boston and did the Awkward turtle, and HIS FRIENDS knew what I was doing and mimed it back. The entry is legit.129.244.129.126
Delete Legit maybe, not-notable definitely --Ruby 15:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is perfectly valid and interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.244.43.144 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom.--Adam ^(talk) 16:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a recent phenomenon dating back last year with few if any verifiable sources. Capitalistroadster 17:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. -- Krash (Talk) 18:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has several outside corroberating sources, so is obviously not a hoax, and it will be interesting to see the trend as it spreads. DogFog 18:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also: what is the difference between making a wiki about Awkward Turtle and making a wiki about the obnoxious and equally non-notable The Game? Both are relatively recent memes, and Awkward Turtle has the advantage of being something outside of its own propagation, unlike the Amwayesque Game. --Warnthepenguins 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe in a few years, if it becomes mainstream. Wikipedia recognizes viral memes, it doesn't spread them. Jaxal1 19:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It definitely occurs, it's not a hoax, and I don't even understand where the nonsense vote comes from. I can possibly see the neologism issue, but most people who are voting to delete as a hoax or unverifiable, neither of which are accurate.--nhinchey 19:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Comparisons to The Game are completely off base: that was noted in a MacWorld article, which carries significantly more clout per WP:V than one mention in Brown's daily rag earlier this month. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Very few Googles, recently created, originates in colllege... Guy 23:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Though the Brown link is a step in the direction of verifiability, it sounds like it could be a fairly small, passing fad. Maybe revisit it in a year? OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It might be notable in the future but it definitely isn't now. JoshuaZ 00:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources? --Jay(Reply) 00:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! It's very valid —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.233.19.112 (talk • contribs) .

Hmm, we have four IP addresses voting, none of which have any wikipedia contributions prior, all voting for keep, with their strongest argument being anecdotal. Guys, you may want to read up a bit on what the rules and guidelines are for articles on Wikipedia, and please look over the guidlines for AfDs. Thanks. JoshuaZ 04:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as not-quite-notable yet. If a newspaper article could be found mentioning that Olympian performing it, that might do it, but one newspaper article about a specific campus is not good enough. Turnstep 05:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. Stifle 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Retarded. And this guy is using sock puppets. This is an encyclopedia.MiracleMat 04:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe an article in five years if it truly catches on. (I think not - it's rather too complicated for a simple gesture.) D e nni ☯ 04:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consider for deletion when not in regular use. Good reference to American culture to us non-americans.--Factorylad 13:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why it should be deleted. Grue 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No part of Wikipedia needs to be 'mainstream' to be considered legitimate. It is clearly not a hoax, and even if you argued that it started as a hoax, it has gained a notable following at both the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University. Wikipedia's goal is to be on top of these kinds of things. When I first saw the awkward turtle, the first thing I did was to check if Wikipedia knew of it before I believed that existed.

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

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

The result of the debate was del WP:CSD A8: copyvio dump from [15]. mikka (t) 09:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clonizer[edit]

nn computer, ad, 300 Google hits, previously proded with: "Spam!" WP 09:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile bhagwat gita[edit]

Thinly veiled advertisement Melander 09:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irrelevant for an encyclopedia Splette 09:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Splette. -- Tvaughn05 _e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 10:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete big deal, anyone can get an etext of the B.Gita and put it on their PDA --Ruby 15:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above; beyond that, the statement "the Holy book of the Hindus is available for free download for the first time in the history of mankind" is nothing short of misleading; I downloaded a copy for free a decade ago. Further, the website linked does not appear to offer the product in question. ergot 23:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JoshuaZ 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad and nn --James 04:16, 24 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. Article does not really establish any notability to Kühne outside the Hospitality Club he founded and he is already mentioned in that article. JIP | Talk 23:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veit_Kühne[edit]

Delete not notable person after Wikipedia rules. His role as founder of Hospitality Club is already mentioned in the Hospitality Club article and does not justify a separate entry. Splette 09:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ruby 15:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was elected a local official only and HC involvement doesn't make him newsworthy. --Valmi ✒ 21:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (have POV)[reply]
Delete. Not really of interest.--Dagox 16:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is basically in charge for an organisation of over 100.000 people, with the goal to reach 1 million - in fact, there's not even an organisation, it's all in his name. That definitely justifies an article about him. Please link to the standards which say it doesn't justify an entry, and explain why.
If this article still needs to go, then it should become a part of the Hospitality Club article, considering the importance of Veit within HC. Guaka (can't find those round thingies on this keyboard) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guaka (talk • contribs) 15:47, 21 February 2006

see WP:BIO. - FrancisTyers 15:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just barely meeting notability guidelines, but there has to be that someone who is the last one over the line. Founding and running an organization that has 100,000 members (someone's verified this?) seems to be notable enough. Carlossuarez46 20:57, 22 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 01:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Liberation in the GDR[edit]

This is an article that should exist and is on an interesting and encyclopedic subject. However, this article as it stands is not it. This article is original research, written in the first person, and contains nothing really useful that is not already covered in Gay rights in Germany so is effectively a duplicate. Reluctantantly, a delete.➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 10:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 11:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already covered elsewhere as indicated by nom --Ruby 15:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honbicot 18:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 18:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Guy 23:29, 20 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 due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 18:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Craig[edit]

Appears to be promotional / vanity page. Subject is author of minor children's novels. Content has elements which sound like marketing blurb. No evidence of significance of works given beyond links to author website and amazon book store listings. Note that if this is deleted, the wikilink also needs to be removed from the Emmanuel College, Cambridge page Bwithh 10:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs cleaning up, but there doesn't seem to be any doubt that he's a published author with a past in writing, composition, and performance that's interesting and significant. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mel Etitis. Logophile 15:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JoshuaZ 15:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the notability of this author/composer is clearcut (there is some doubt since I made the afd request... and being published is not enough), but I'm going to change this to a cleanup request. withdrawing deletion request Bwithh 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Literature: "Authors and writers are notable if they have released a book (other than through vanity press)." As for withdrawing, it's not that simple I'm afraid; I've replaced the template, and I'm checking to see whether it's permissible to close the AfD early. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:46, 20 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 Multiple (see below). This is a complete mess, but I'll try my best:

Salvation Air Force: No consensus
Tom Howard: No consensus
Alex MacDougall: No consensus
Strangers In A Strange Land: Redirect to Stranger in a Strange Land
Let's Boogie For Jesus!: Delete
Donnie Gossett: Delete
Michael Leon Gossett: Delete
Prayer Warriors On Parade: Delete
Not Sleep Music: Delete
We Shall Rock!: Delete
Bleed The Dream the album: Delete
Zero Avenue: Delete

--D e ath phoenix 15:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation Air Force[edit]

A much smaller article was the original nomination and Salvation Air Force added later, although it is the main article. The original nominator wrote the following paragraph about Let's Boogie For Jesus!. DJ Clayworth 15:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An easter-egg advert for the external link. Google search for "Let's Boogie for Jesus" returns 5 hits of which (worryingly) this is the top one. RobertG ♬ talk 10:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the rest of this walled garden, many of which have been contested nominations at WP:PROP.

Let's Boogie For Jesus!
Donnie Gossett
Michael Leon Gossett
Tom Howard
Alex MacDougall
Prayer Warriors On Parade
Not Sleep Music
We Shall Rock!
Bleed The Dream the album
Strangers In A Strange Land
Zero Avenue

--RobertG ♬ talk 11:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment was before the nomination of the whole walled garden. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising Maustrauser 11:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment was before the nomination of the whole walled garden. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, the Salvation Air Force is legit --Ruby 15:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable except Tom Howard, Alex MacDougall and Salvation Air Force, which appear legit. Sandstein 16:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group has a thirty year history, has produced several albums, satisfies WP:MUSIC, has worked with some major players, and done all this while essentially being a niche band. We have many articles about more obscue subjects. The articles on albums should probably be merged and redirected, but the group article is certainly valid. DJ Clayworth 19:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification of vote. Keep the group article and make the album titles redirects (or delete if you prefer) No vote on the band members. Could be merged. DJ Clayworth 21:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, except possibly Salvation Air Force, as non-notable. Guy 23:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep salvation air force Jcuk 23:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. --Jay(Reply) 00:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the liberty of making the main article the title so that people actually get to read the reasons why the band is notable before getting to the silly articles about their albums. A quick check will reveal that this is not a 'walled garden'. There are links from major articles into Salvation Air Force and Tom Howard. Unless you consider Larry Norman part of the garden. DJ Clayworth 15:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC) I should add that Strangers In A Strange Land should be Redirected to Stranger in a Strange Land (the Heinlein work). Carlossuarez46 21:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to put a damper on the spirit of debate, but why do we think this band is non-notable? They satisfy WP:MUSIC in at least three different ways; they have recorded several albums with a major record label; they have toured internationally; they have worked with major names in the music business. Everybody is entitled to their opinion but I'd really appreciate it if someone who said 'not notable' would say why they think that. Thanks. DJ Clayworth 16:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the debate is re-framed and re-defined it's always easy to question what's been said in the past but your lobbying to keep the band appears to be sincere. I will take the position that the band may or may not be (barely) notable -- although the Let's Boogie For Jesus! article shows that a band member (Donnie Gossett) wrote most of the songs, produced the album, and the album's label was donniegossett.com (for authors in print media this looks and feels like vanity press) -- that notwithstanding, its members and its albums are not. Not every album issued by even an undisputedly notable group is worthy of an article: some major artists have no discography (e.g., Glen Campbell) or where they do, see the discography section of many important artists and you'll see an absence of links (e.g., Johnny_Cash_discography) or red ones. Now, perhaps some people think that Salvation is bigger than Campbell or Cash, but IMHO they're not. Moreover, members of notable groups are not inherently notable. For example, see, e.g., the article A*Teens; each member's name is a redirect to the group which says all that need be said about the members which in some cases (like birthdates and places) is more extensive than those of Salvation's member's long-winded articles. The A*Teens, regardless of what you may think of them, have sold 8 million albums -- the Salvation article provides no sales numbers, so no assertion of notability on that score. So, in short, the band may or may not be a vanity-press produced group either barely notable or just not notable. The band members and its albums are clearly not notable. Carlossuarez46 21:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree that the articles on then individual albums need to go, but the early albums for this band were on Myrrh Records, a division of Word Records, definitely not a small player, especially in the Christian music business. I'm not sure they've sold 8 million albums but this is definitely not vanity publishing. DJ Clayworth 21:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have less problem with the group than with the albums and band members. It seems we're at least on accord there. But as I understand it Myrrh has gone through some change of control and that it's name was apparently detached from its legacy, but I'm not familiar with when that happened and it's not really worthwhile to figure that out -- others will do so. The named album that was the original title of the AfD is the one that appears to be vanity publishing and nothing you've said contradicts that. However, as the original nomination was for the albums and the band members, my vote on them remains Delete. As for the band itself, I'll take no position and let the consensus consense (nice made up verb?) Carlossuarez46 04:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krash also left some explanations on my talk page pointing out that the band gets no entry on allmusic or Amazon and only 400 or so Google hits, plus the article was written mostly by one person. Honestly I have to admit that those are very bad signs and I would be skeptical myself. All I could say was that the band was mainly active long before the internet, and (I would have to admit) not big enough that their back-catalogue is still on sale in anything except specialty used outlets. I don't know what happened to Myrhh later, but at the time they were owned by Word, and Word was unquestionably the biggest publisher of modern Christian music, in the days before it was fashionable.

I should also probably say that Let's Boogie For Jesus! does look like vanity publishing. My vote for that is now delete. DJ Clayworth 23:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. KHM03 23:54, 24 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 by User:Starblind Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulshinder_Paul_Singh_Gaddu[edit]

I don't know where to start. Acha11 12:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for nn-bio Melander 13:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent hoax: [16] & [17]. PJM 13:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- patent nonsense, nn-bio, hoax, you name it. Grandmasterka 13:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted lame patent nonsense. For example, claims to have invented a microchip-flavoured cookie in 1849. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is gone, can't vote, maybe we could close this debate --Ruby 15:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sure. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:56, 20 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. One of the two transwiki comments gives "dictionary definition" as the reason, while the other makes note that this could be a neologism. D e ath phoenix 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Munt[edit]

Article fails to give any sources. Google doesn't provide any help after a cursory examination. The verifiability policy says that the burden is on the provider, so delete unless more information provided that this is not only a word in common parlance as deomstrated by reliable sources but also that it can be expanded beyond a simple definition. brenneman ^{T}^{L} 13:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munt - not the same meaning, provided for completeness.

You guys sure are quick to disrespect some-one/thing you obviously know nothing about. A cursory google.. is that the basis of yr deletion request?

I've only just kicked the article off. There are many websites that refer to raves, electronic music etc... and use the word Munt or Munter like; tribeofmunt.org (a squat rave crew), muntersguide.co.uk (which is a page for ravers, events, etc...)

Nothing to do with me btw.

give articles a chance, bruv.

The word 'munter' is a fairly common word in the rave/electronic music scene - ask a raver!

tactik 13:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I subscribe to the idea that articles should contain basic sourced info from the start, WP:CITE. What is the point of throwing unsourced information on the Wiki? PJM 13:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary. Dictionary definition. --Sam Pointon 13:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain for the time being. Unlike obvious hoaxes and vanity pieces, articles with possible value ought to be able to stay up longer than 19 minutes while the author works on it. I'm all for sourcing, but would a week be too long to see if the author continues to work on it? As of this moment it looks like a dicdef, but could be expanded. Thatcher131 13:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand the need to throw something on without at least one valid source. Why make it difficult for other editors to examine it? PJM 13:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

umm, not sure on what can constitute a source... there's plenty of info (I didn't realise it was a 'guilty til proven innocent type deal')... after a few seconds on google i found other sites giving definitions of munt/munter -http://website.lineone.net/~whatmakesmetick/c%20munters.html-.. but i am unsure of copyright etc... please help with constructive criticism guys. tactik 14:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also check http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=munter&page=2 for additional info..tactik 14:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary isn't genreally considered a reliable source, for example it doesn't have a peer-review mechanism. Print and large online sources (wired, salon, etc) are pretty solid ground. Oh, and try out the "reliable sources" link in my nomination, it's a better explanation than I can give. You might also try out some known "article savers" like User:Kappa and User:Tony Sidaway, they have a knack for finding sources. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 14:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary at least gives you an idea that there are people out there who use the word and know it's meaning... another urban dictionary link reveals more -http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=munted

I should continue searching until I find it used by a president in his inauguration speech, yes? ;P

tactik 14:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some constructive advice: don't resort to sarcasm. It will hurt your case more than help it. Also, please understand that dictionary definitions in general do not warrant articles. PJM 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was, quite obviously, just a joke. I only just found out Wiktionary existed, maybe it does belong there.tactik 13:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I ain't seen a good article like this in munts --Ruby 15:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary. Certainly not used widely, possible neologisms in here. --MacRusgail 17:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, non-notable neologism. -- Krash (Talk) 18:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. Guy 23:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is munted (by the more common meaning of the term). Grutness...wha? 00:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, the term means to be fucked up on drugs.. it has been adapted to mean broken, trashed, ugly, beyond repair, messy, etc..tactik 14:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You sure about that? I was under the impression that it was a north African term for broken, brought back to Australia and New Zealand by returned servicement after WWII. It's only in recent years that it's been taken over as drug-related slang. It's also a highly derogatory term in South Africa for anyone of non-European descent, BTW. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the word, but oddly enough in none of the senses listed, and anyway, those senses wouldn't be encyclopedic. One of them is "to stammer", and the other is "to jump on a corpse until fluids come out" (Urban legend territory - is that really a useful term?) --MacRusgail 15:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the word munt means to either be fucked up or to fuck things up... like stammering (fucked up speech) and the Olympic sport of corpse-jumping (AKA fucking up the deceased)... tactik 13:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Jay(Reply) 00:55, 21 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 01:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qwiff[edit]

Originally marked with {{prod}} tag without comment. So I am moving it here. It looks like neologism. James084 13:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Term is used only by the author and the readers who drank his coolaid. This has nothing to do with quantum physics or science. Monkeyman 14:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax --Ruby 15:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism only every used by Fred Alan Wolf, as far as I know. Merge it into his article. GangofOne 18:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After deletion (if it happens), recreate as redirect to quiff (the hairstyle) as a possible misspelling? -- Saberwyn 20:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:00, 21 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 Multiple (see below). Egad, another messy "multiple nominations" AfD. Once again, I'll do my best:

Keith Famie: Keep
Jeff Varner: Keep
Tammy Leitner: Keep and cleanup
Rodger Bingham: Delete
Greg Buis: Delete
Gervase Peterson: Delete
Nick Brown (Survivor): Delete

--D e ath phoenix 16:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Famie, Jeff Varner, Rodger Bingham, Greg Buis, Gervase Peterson, Nick Brown (Survivor), Tammy Leitner[edit]

Delete - nn survivor contestant pages, also possible Copyvio from some contestants' actual pages. -- Arnzy | Talk 13:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- On second thoughts, Keep Famie and Varner on the basis of the achievements outside of survivor that Rob has listed. Redirect Leitner untill/unless someone can write a decent article for her, and Delete everyone else. As for the the rest, which are non-notable, some articles has Copyvio in a few articles like this one which is pretty much pasted from their actual official contestant page. -- Arnzy | Talk 11:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Keith Famie's article may also run under Copyvio as some information seems to be pasted from his offical contestant page. The article may need to be cleaned up if kept. -- Arnzy | Talk 11:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They don't survive WP:BIO, in my view. PJM 13:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all survivor articles are banned by order of the Tribe --Ruby 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, I'd personally be mildly inclined to keep winners. I don't see any winners here though, so I guess my point is kinda moot. Delete All. -- Saberwyn 20:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC) [AMENDMENT] If consensus leans in that general direction, I would support redirect without merge as a second option. All of these kind of people were nobodies before the show, and with a very few exceptions (which don't seem to be here), went back to being nobodies as soon as all the media fuss died down. -- Saberwyn 20:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 20:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ all losers. Actually, let me expand on that: these articles should never have been created in the first place. Reality show contestants are not notable: once the show is over, even the winner usually retreats to the obscurity form which they came. One or two, such as Jade Goody, become famous-for-being-famous, but the vast majority were never heard of before, and are never heard of after. I favour a minimum twelve month embargo on creation of any article on a reality show or contestant - it's not like we need to scoop anybody. Guy 23:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course if you did that, you'ld have to do it for most other types of articles. At which point, you would defeat the entire concept of a wiki, which allows for us to be vastly more up-to-date than most other publications. If we thought it was ok to be a year out-of-date, then we wouldn't have a system of instant publication. --Rob 09:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I don't think so. I don't believe more than a tiny minority of articles document current events. Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, a pretty high perecentage of *new* articles, and recent edits to articles in general, relate to new events. That's a reason for having a wiki. If we didn't mind being out-of-date, then it would make far more sense for us to have a system where edits are reviewed, and not published to the public immedidately. Anyhow, an excellent example of us creating articles on the "recently notable" is our coverage of the Olympics. Every single day, many such bio articles are being made and/or substantially updated. I and many, other editors have made bio articles for people who weren't known widely until this month. Do you wish to impose a 12-month freeze on Olympic athletes as well? Perhaps, we shouldn't make bio articles on athletes, until they're proven to be famous long after the games are over? --Rob 10:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep for Famie, Varner, and Leitner per info on awards etc, delete the rest. As a failed survivor candidade, profoundly non-notable; as a journalist with one Emmy and four Emmy nominations, clearly notable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~all these~~ those without clear outside notability; keep and cleanup Tammy Leitner per Colin Kimbrell, no vote on Famie and Vartner. As in previous AfDs, I don't think notability attaches to non-winning contestants on such shows, and I question whether even the winners are notable unless they go on to sell records which are certified gold, sign major-label record contracts, get featured on TV appearances other than promo appearances on the same network, or otherwise generate evidence of meeting WP standards. Barno 19:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (changed vote Barno 14:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Today we're talking about Survivor contestants, not Idol contestants. The fact you mentioned gold records, and major labels, suggests you didn't read the articles, and aren't familiar with the show. --Rob 14:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:AGF, WP:NPA. Zero or one person, if I understand correctly, has become famous for being a Survivor winner. Clear outside notability can come from hosting a cable TV program, or recording a chart-topping album, or many other things that have nothing to do with whether their insufficiently-notable reality-show appearance was on Survivor or Pop Idol or some other. Read better before you accuse others of not reading or not understanding. Barno 19:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look, we both know you mixed up different types of shows (I note, you have no explanation for the double-mention of music-specific criteria). You wrote as if you were in an Idol (or other musical talent) contestant AFD. I don't consider it a personal attack to point out an obvious mix-up, because I welcome it when people point out an obvious mix-up, on my part. --Rob 10:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Famie, Varner, and Leitner for achievements that are independent of Survivor (notable chefship, status as TV anchor, and Emmy Award-winning journalism, respectively); Merge the others to the relevant season of the show. The cases for the first two are borderline, but Leitner should be an absolute slam-dunk thanks the award. Discussions like the ones above make me wonder whether people actually read the articles before voicing their opinions here. -Colin Kimbrell 05:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This will sound strange: the fact each one is different, isn't a great reason to vote differently on each, in this case. It's a good reason to not have an AFD, and to just let individual editors do merge/redirects where appropriate, or improve individual articles where appropriate. I think a case could probably be made for redirecting all the articles, even Leitner in the *short* term. Once, they're in a better state, stand alone articles make sense for some (especially Leitner). Even Leitner is in a terrible undocumented/promo state at the moment. I think a basic issue with AFD, is we're voting based on one static point in time, but which articles should be stand-alone, and which should be merged/redirected is something subject to continuous/dynamic change. --Rob 10:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per precedent for comparable people on national hit reality shows. Given the poor quality of these articles, a better approach is to put in a redirect for the time being, unless/untill somebody turns into a proper article. There's really no reason for deletion here. I judge contestants on shows, like I would lead actors on a hit drama. The fact they're on a reality show, doesn't make them less notable. This shouldn't be a vote on whether people thing reality shows should be deemed noteworthy. Its whether they've been widely found to be, by others. It seems people are voting to delete because they *wish* these people were not notable. The great advantage of a redirect, is it can be undone easily, when the article is improved (especially with new information about the person). That's a better approach, than people making new articles from scratch (with new AFDs), or going to DRV. This whole thing could be taken care of in five minutes, with one person doing some redirects. That seems much more efficient. --Rob 09:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one's pretty cut and dry if you ask me. Imagine, if you will, an actor who appears in one season of a hit television show. One of the top rated shows of that season. Would we allow an article on that actor? Of course we would. Well, Survivor is a top-rated show, and although it doesn't use actors, these folks are the "stars" of the show. -- MisterHand 15:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Reality show contestants aren't actors, but as particpants or contestants that undertake tasks (such as surviving or participating in activities) or answering questions. It's just like a game show, a large majority of those contestants fade back into obscurity once the show is over. Some may go on to be notable after the show such as Ami Cusack or Elizabeth Hasselbeck. But the rest of them do not, thus not meeting WP:BIO standards. -- Arnzy | Talk 15:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are not just contestants, they are personalities. Many of these shows, Survivor included, has a full story arc based on the behavior of the contestants between tasks. It's a lot different than appearing on a game show for 30 minutes and answering quiz questions. Many actors fade into obscurity after their show goes off the air as well. Should we delete their articles? Assuming NPOV, we need to treat these contestants the same way we'd treat an actor on a similarly-rated show. -- MisterHand 15:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - About 75% of "celebrities" these days would not be picked out from a line-up containing them and five holes in the ground, but that's an aside. There was a debate on failed political candidates a while back, and many people expressed the view that (a) they weren't notable before; (b) the primary source of information on them during their period in the spotlight is themselves, therefore not neutrsal; (c) after falling back to obscurity no further verifiable data is available. So you have an article which says in essence: "in 2006 X said this about him/herself and did this. X is now believed to be selling insurance in Mudflat, Missouri". Why not just embargo the thing for a year, come back and see if any of them turn out to be Jade Goody (i.e. famous for being famous) and how many were merely data points for the Warhol hypothesis? Trust me, there is no shortage of genuinely encyclopaedic topics requiring work! Just zis Guy you know? 22:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The "genuinely encyclopedic topics" is a non-argument if you ask me. It's not an either/or proposition. It's not as if the people editing articles about Survivor contestants are taking time that they might otherwise be using to write about Russian literature (or whatever topics you might find "worthy"). Really, this whole thing smacks of elitism to me...people who don't care for unscripted television deleting articles because they aren't personally interesting to them. I don't understand why a different standard is held for actors who appear on scripted series who get similar ratings...many of them are nobodies who become notable because of their appearance on those shows (for instance, Evangeline Lily. -- MisterHand 00:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MisterHand. --Maxamegalon2000 16:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just for the record, if Leitner is kept, I will work on cleaning up her article to a respectable level of quality. -Colin Kimbrell 00:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You may need to clean up Famie as well, should Famie be kept, seeing parts of the article seem to be Copyvio from his official contestant page. -- Arnzy | Talk 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's in need of cleanup, but I'm afraid I don't know enough about the subject to do a good job of it. -Colin Kimbrell 20:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I understand the reasons for not wanting a stand-alone article on some of these people, given the poor state of content today. So, I would like to ask the delete voters (as opposed to merge/redirects) why they prefer deletion (with permanent removal of content) over merge/redirect. We'll continue to have content written about all of them in the Survivor/season article, so why not redirect readers to this content? I think the Emmy case highlights the danger of deletion, since we could have lost that information, if there'ld have been a delete (it wasn't in the surivior article, as it wasn't about the show specifically). A redirect doesn't destroy such information, and allows it to be used later in a spun-off article. It's worth noting, that we often do the merge/redirect for failed political candidates. --Rob 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all save for whatever trivial bits might be worth merging into the appropriate Survivor article. This includes Leitner (winning a local Emmy is about as prestigious as winning $20 on a scratch-off lottery ticket), though I'll have no objection to a rewritten-from-scratch article on her if Colin wishes to do so after the current abomination has been deleted. --Aaron 00:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Mmeinhart 04:41, 28 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. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADVISE[edit]

Delete, written by suspected sockpuppet User:Federal Street who has been putting up political soapbox propaganda throughout Wikipedia. --Jersey Devil 13:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, the CS monitor article on it gives it relevance despite the fact that a sockpuppet made it. If someone can do a heavy clean-up of the article (and take it out of the disasterous state it is in) I'd changed my call for deletion.--Jersey Devil 13:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a real program, and the ADVISE people are watching this vote --Ruby 15:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another vote for Total Information Un-Awareness. (This violates WP:V). -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be a real program. Just needs expansion and clean up. JoshuaZ 00:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But source, and dust up. --Jay(Reply) 00:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just need to cut the second half, and expand the first half based on the CS article --Niku 04:40, 23 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 01:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam rage[edit]

Delete : I always thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than an extensive database for each and every self-explanatory neologism coined by attention-seeking journalists. Knight of the soundtable 14:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Monkeyman 14:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thue | talk 14:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as rage-inducing spam. Logophile 15:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Logophile. Scoo 15:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Otherwise "rage" will become a suffix added to every noun and get a separate article, inducing Ragecruft Rage --Ruby 15:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly transwiki to Wikidictionary? JoshuaZ 15:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:NOT violation. --Talain 11:25, 24 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 01:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Raptor Marine Question[edit]

Article originally prodded without comment so I am moving to AfD. Looks like nonsense and lack of content. James084 14:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. Monkeyman 14:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would need context, even if it were notable. JPD (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; pointless. PJM
Delete not only trivial, but trivially trivial --Ruby 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense, trivial GangofOne 18:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from author[edit]

No one is the least bit curious who would win? Alright, you can delete it, but seriously raptors vs. marines? I always say Marines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heytheretaylor (talk • contribs)

fixing nom.--Isotope23 20:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind... Speedy Delete as nonsense.--Isotope23 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that people aren't curious, it's that Foo VS Bar articles don't really belong in an encyclopedia. -- Saberwyn 20:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear case of WP:NFT. Guy 23:40, 20 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. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advanta[edit]

One-line article on very small local bank; no significance asserted or evident, no obvious potential for expansion. Is there a list to which this could be redirected? If not, then delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more than half a century of history, named one of "The Most Admired Companies in America" by Fortune magazine in 2000. 12,000 employees. Traded on NASDAQ. Definitely deserves an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Traffic Rank for advanta.com: 211,459 (outside of my comfort range) --Ruby 15:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You need to assert the importance of this company. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Cdcon 17:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind. Guy 23:42, 20 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. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:12] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Disciples of annihilation[edit]

Fixing incorrectly formatted nomination.--Isotope23 17:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One album band, not notable enough. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 22:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This may have been a one album band, but their efforts were actually very notable. For anyone involved in the speedcore/terrorcore scene, DOA are seen as (perhaps) the most important group ever for the genre. Sometimes 01:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you cite a reputable source for this assertion? It would help to make your case. The more specific the citation (i.e. page number, name of the author, place of publication, directly quoted text excerpt), the better. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but I am not aware of any published work concerning speedcore. It is an extremely obscure genre of music. Ishkur's Guide To Electronic Music is generally considered to be a reputable source regarding electronic music. You can find this at http://www.ishkur.com/music/ and you will note that under the category "Hardcore" you will find the subgenre "Speedcore". D.O.A. are cited as the second example of the genre. Would contact with contemporary Hardcore DJ's help? Sometimes 04:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 04:58, 25 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 01:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unicommunion[edit]

Delete. Not notable - Google shows only Wikipedia and mirrors. Article was previously tagged as nonsense but the author removed this and added "The addition of intellectual content can not be achieved if a reasonable amount of time is not granted for editing and additional research. Please do not delete this article, it is a serious attempt to explain some of the intricasies of quantum mechanics on a macroscopic scale." My italics. Sorry. Wikipedia is not the place for original research! Taking this through AfD to make the process visible. Cje 14:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reads like the result of hallucinogenic insight. Fan1967 14:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 15:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ohh, wowww... that's, like, totally deep, dude. Suggest author become familiar with WP:NOR. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If I see another article like this, I'm going to hang myself. Monkeyman 15:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ruby 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOR. Failing that, CSD G1. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:04, 20 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 per CSD A7.--Alhutch 17:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Windram[edit]

Probable hoax. A google search turns up nothing matching the description given in the article.[18] Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of this article. --Allen3 ^talk 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PJM 15:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? this is real.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coinman (talk • contribs) 15:44, February 20, 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Ruby 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thue | talk 16:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also possibly copyvio due to LiveJournal-quality poetry bits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 20 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. It's borderline between a Keep and a Merge. A keep vs. merge discussion is not for AfD, so I'll leave that up the editors to decide. D e ath phoenix 16:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakey Oaks[edit]

A town that exists only in one film that I don't think it can get an article in its own right. Delete. Georgia guy 15:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful info with Chicken Little. PJM 15:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as surely as any Narnia location article is keepable --Ruby 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ruby. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge/redirect to the film. Narnia is the subject of several books, all more notable than this movie, equating the two is flawed (and even most Narnia locations could be merged as well). -R. fiend 17:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks importance. Smacks of original research/opinion. -- Krash (Talk) 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chicken Little (2005 film); as a second choice, just delete it. This vote should expressly not be interpreted by the closing admin as a "no consensus/keep". --Metropolitan90 01:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. As long as this article does not remain in its current form. Indrian 05:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main location of quite notable film. We have many articles on fictional places. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chicken Little (2005 film) per WP:FICT, or delete. Nothing notable about this fictional town; it has no significance to the movie's plotline, no interest outside the context of the film, and no usage in broader discussion (cf. Flatland). Barno 19:52, 21 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 01:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kilbirnie Cheesy Eggs[edit]

Non-notable club. Thue | talk 15:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn. Monkeyman 15:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All sports articles get kept, notable or not --Ruby 15:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not really true, many sports articles normally get deleted especially articles on non-notable clubs, proffesianal players articles get kept, not this and Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unremarkable. I'd even go so far as to say {{db-club}}. -- Krash (Talk) 18:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Sandstein 19:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article: "local amateur" club which has "never won anything of note". Says it all really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, 21 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 01:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitard (slang)[edit]

A slangdef combined with some unsourced reports about a court case and a table. Not a proper article anyway. --W(t) 15:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This belongs in http://www.urbandictionary.com/. Monkeyman 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ruby 15:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. -- Krash (Talk) 19:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all footards. Guy 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm not even sure UrbanDictionary would keep it. Haikupoet 02:53, 21 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. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Gonzalez (CSC)[edit]

Although this subject appears real and is not likely to be vanity, the article doesn't assert any real notability of the subject. I am inclined to say Delete it, as it is not likely to progress from a stub, ever, unless the subject performs something much more notable than he has to date. Bobby1011 15:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would vote to delete it but the owners of the Intelligent design article will come in here and astroturf it --Ruby 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of few professors arguing in favor of intelligent design. Significant figure in the debate. There is a fair amount of press coverage on this guy. (Please do not confuse my 'keep' vote as an endorsement of ID.) Monkeyman 15:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, I would accept the explanation given by Monkeyman, but it speaks for itself that the article will have to make reference to his sigificance. I have certainly never heared of him, though to be fair, I don't really follow the ID vs. Evolution/Bigbang debate. Bobby1011 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Monkeyman -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable [19]. Monicasdude 16:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep King aardvark 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC) I started this thing, sorry I just threw up a single line to start the page. Too busy to do anything else. He is notable in the ID argument. He lectures frequently, and some of his ideas are not strictly ID per se, and have been in Scientific American. I certainly don't like ID, but it's an important issue and should have all the info available. Unfortunately, I really don't have the time to do any more on this[reply]
Keep Major figure on the ID side. JoshuaZ 06:13, 25 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. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:15] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

The Irish in the Western United States[edit]

The text is far too long and written in too poorer style to have any salvagable value. I hate to flush such information, but it's already covered to a large extent under Irish American and this article is simply too indepth. It also covers information completely irrelevant to its subject. Bobby1011 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not written as an encyclopedia article. JPD (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unwikified essay, I would not be at all surprised to find out this was a cut-and-paste of someone's school assignment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Ruby 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Honbicot 18:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears to be a cut and paste from elsewhere. If not copyvio, might be worth keeping brielfy on a talk pages to see if any information/references might be useful in other articles. MartinRe 19:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have left a note on the creator's talk pages notifying them of the afd, shouldn't that have been done earlier, as an important part of AfD etiquette rather than simply afd'ing it four minutes after creation? MartinRe 19:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verify source of information, and Keep - For the love of God... this is verifiable material, and has bibliographical sources. Even if it's someone's term paper that they C&P'd, if we can verify that they want to contribute it under GFDL then we can dice it up and use the information (and sources) in other articles, for what it's worth. If it's "too indepth" as the nominator says (what a bizarre complaint for Wikipedia), or if there's dilatory details on the history of Ireland, Celts, etc, then edit the info down (mercilessly, as it says at the bottom of the edit page).

Please people, don't discard even mediocre writing out of hand - writing an encyclopedia is the goal here. These are not rationales for deletion - see Deletion policy at "Problems that don't require deletion".

This is not American Idol where we pithily plonk articles all day just because we don't think they've got what it takes to be a star. The subject matter is notable and deems inclusion, perhaps through merger to other articles. {{sofixit}}. KWH 15:05, 24 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, but without prejudice if someone can write a neutral article about this company. D e ath phoenix 16:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointbase[edit]

This article attempts to walk a very fine line between being about a company and endorsing said company. I think this is an advertisment, if for no other reason than that the company is not sufficiently notable. The article also lists the contact information and has a Features and Benefits section. Bobby1011 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is now. Company seems non-notable, reads like an advertisement, POV, and drifts between talking about "Pointbase", which I gather is a database, and the company, "DataMirror." --Spaceman85 | my talk 16:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. Currently reads like an advertisement. This is notable software by a notable company (NASDAQ: DMCX; TSX: DMC). Monkeyman 17:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure advertising vanity, see WP:NOT. Cdcon 17:28, 20 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 blahlete. Mailer Diablo 01:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Fellowship of Churches and Ministers[edit]

This is a religious tract/spam, but instead of knocking on people's doors they are just posting it on Wikipedia --Her girlfriend 16:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh, or if that's not considered a valid vote, delete. --W(t) 16:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 16:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE BECAUSE IT CONTAINS TOO MUCH SHOUTING. And what isn't actually SHOUTING is nearly as strident. Guy 17:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blah, per User:Weyes. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soapboxing.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement as well as for the above reasons. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 22 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 01:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Futurism (Clothes philosophy)[edit]

This seems to be original research, or at least research which has no academic recognision. Futurism "Tom Windram" has no google hits. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Windram. Thue | talk 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of this article. --Allen3 ^talk 16:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have heard of this. I even have some articles of verification i believe, though it really is obscure and will take at least a day to find them. Perhaps change the word 'famous'?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coinman (talk • contribs) 16:12, February 20, 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Coinman was the creator of this article.

Monkeyman 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 16:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, nn, original research, pick your reason. --Aaron 16:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty sure this is a joke, or at least tongue-in-cheek (read the "criticism to the criticism" section, for example). Even if not, it's covered by WP:NOR. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aaron. I pick all of them. Monkeyman 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no such thing as clothes philosophy, other than "Buy what ELLE magazine tells you to buy" --Ruby 16:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article claims that this is the basis of a nudist movement in Perth and Adelaide. There has been no coverage of this in the Australian media or other media and the media normally loves to cover stories involving nudity (normally with a wide angle. This is unverifiable. A Google search for futurism Windram came up with four results see [20]. Capitalistroadster 18:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 18:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)".Capitalistroadster 18:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Roisterer 08:53, 21 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 01:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arms Against War[edit]

No verification that such a group exists. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. Sandstein 16:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced to indicate notability. --W(t) 16:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 16:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not understand the objections to my submitted article, we are a legitimate group and cause no harm or self promotion through this. We are simply trying to unite against war. As to our right to be on Wikipedia, perhaps you could let me know just what is the criteria for 'notability'? I know you are not a soapbox, but you are a rich source of information that I rely on for new as well as established information. Please do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.93.240 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Please refer to WP:Notability, WP:NOT. In a nutshell, first you get famous, then you get an article, not the other way round. Greetings, Sandstein 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
Delete WP is not a soapbox, per nom --Ruby 16:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:NOT in that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. For more info, read those two links and this one: Wikipedia:Notability.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 20, 2006, 16:43 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-gummi[edit]

Originally speedy-deleted as a neologism, undeleted at DRV for further scrutiny under the full deletion process. No vote at present. -R. fiend 16:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sounds very much to me like original research. Bobby1011 16:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, I was eating Dots back in my day long before these newfangled gummi bears came out --Ruby 16:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. There are two references, one does not seem to contain the word "quasi-gummi" at all, and the other has it on the sidebar with similar terms "Contempo-Gummis" and "Classic Euro-Gummis", which I think can be safely said to not be commonly-used terms for what they describe either. Try walking into a store and asking for "contempo-gummis" and see what they say. Google hits number about 180 but all seem to be Wikipedia and its mirrors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to verify this usage at DRV, and still can't. Guy 17:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any article that uses the word gummiology is either a hoax or made up in school one day or both. -- Krash (Talk) 20:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "sources" provided and searches don't convince me that this is more than a non-notable neologism. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no independent evidence of widespread use of this term. The newspaper article from the Internet Archive (in the external links) mentions many compound nouns derived from "gummi", ostensibly in an attempt to be cute or funny. Unless there is convincing evidence of significant usage outside of one article, delete this as hapax. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:56, 24 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 01:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discipline in Nazi Germany[edit]

Original research / POV essay. Sandstein 16:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly written and totally unencyclopedic. Bobby1011 16:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, POV, highschool essay. Monkeyman 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aaron 16:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, redundant per numerous other articles. Guy 17:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undisciplined essay --Ruby 17:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, probably OR. MartinRe
Comment Have notified creator that their article was nominated for afd as per etiquette MartinRe 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the policy to "notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article before nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised" to mean that notification is not necessary when no conceivable edit can address the issue, as in this case: original research remains original research. Sandstein 20:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe it is policy to notify them, as they may be able to address the concernes — even for an unsalavage article, — they might agree with you, and speedy it as creator. Even if it's not strict policy, I believe it would be polite to do so, regardless. MartinRe 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What harm does it do? Johnleemk | Talk 13:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A persuasive argument. Just zis Guy you know? 13:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. What do you consider an appropriate time to wait for the author to address the issues raised? Frankly, I can't imagine some of the editors that create the sort of article that ends up on AfD to be eager to constructively discuss these articles' shortcomings - and wouldn't it save everyone's time to have this discussion directly here on AfD? Sandstein 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no fixed time in my view, depends on many factors, contribution history (recent?/regular?) when article as last edited, has editor edited since message. BTW, assuming an editor won't be eager to discuss their article goes against AGF, in my view. They may be well meaning and simply unaware that it's not approppiate. Put yourself in the shoes of a well intentioned newbie, they create an article, come back a week later, and it's gone. Nothing, no message, nothing to show why their hard work was rejected (unless they figure out how to find the article discussion on afd). That would be harsh, and it should be avoided if possible. MartinRe 14:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGF, as MartinRe says. If the author doesn't show up by the time the AfD closes, generally it should be ok to forget about it, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be nice if the admin who deleted the page, informed the user with a link to the afd discussion, in case the reason the editor didn't show up was because they hadn't accessed wikipedia at all while the debate was going on. Anyway, as this getting very non-specific to this entry, I'm going to add a comment along the above discussion on the afd talk page for discussion. MartinRe 14:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay. Pavel Vozenilek 19:05, 21 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 Move to Travel cost analysis. D e ath phoenix 16:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travel cost method of economic valuation[edit]

This article most likely consists of original research posted on the webpage that is used as a reference. Bobby1011 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to "Travel Cost Analysis". Multiple google results for "travel cost analysis". This is an accepted method for placing value on something that the market cannot. Monkeyman 16:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per norm. Also added to econ category. Cdcon 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --Ruby 17:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I tend to agree with renaming per Monkeyman. But is this more than just a neologism made up by Ecosystemvaluation.org? -- Krash (Talk) 21:07, 20 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. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smuts Hall[edit]

nn residence hall at the University of Cape Town. Universities are notable, student accommodation is not. No assertion as to this building's importance (either in general or to the university specifically) is made in the article. PROD disputed, therefore listing here. Delete Zunaid 09:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC). Additional comment: The level of detail described in this article is more suited to a page on [www.uct.ac.za UCT]'s website. An encyclopedia is meant to give a "arm's length view" on a topic, with extra detail where necessary. IMHO the extra detail is not required in this instance. Zunaid 07:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability and verifiability can be validated. -- Krash (Talk) 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into University of Cape Town. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 23:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Hall is old and part of the history of the University of Cape Town. It should be kept but is not a good article. I think someone from SA should make a better job of it. Merging information on Halls and College into University main articles will not work well particularly if there are a lot of Halls. I am not sure about this University. I woulf like to help but I'm on wikibreak out of town and busy. --Bduke 06:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If it is "not a good article", then it can always be deleted and a better one created in its place. Many articles survive AfD based on "keep and rewrite", without the rewrite subsequently taking place. Zunaid 07:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (no vote) as a former student at UCT (who never resided in Smuts) I'd like to say the following: if any UCT residence could quilify as notable, Smuts and Fuller (the female equivelant) would. Firstly, it is located right on upper campus (where space is extremely limited), secondly, admission is limited to top students and, thirdly, the building itself could be considered notable (architecturally, etc.). The key is of course the if part; and I'm not sure how I'd vote on that one. (Note: I predict repeated recreation - Smuts men have a reputation). Mikker ^... 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep not the most notable building in the world, but it deserves an article. The article is, in my opinion, quite comprehensive and well written. Bobby1011 16:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comprehensive and well-written it is, but the fact that there is exactly one mention of it in University of Cape Town means that the building is a locally semi-famous building. Than means it is NN. Cdcon 17:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dorm falls below the mark notability as a landmark, place of cultural significance, or piece of architecture. Added a cleanup tag if this is kept because it needs an encyclopedic rewrite.--Isotope23 17:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a name like Smuts it has to be good --Ruby 17:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sadly it was named after Jan Smuts....~~ This highly detailed article does not demonstrate notability or significance; delete as a non-notable university hall of residence. Sliggy 19:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologise, I was not commenting on Field Marshal Smuts. I was attempting a (stupid & schoolboy) pun upon his name in response to the comment immediately above. {My vote remains delete.} Sliggy 15:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Krash Guy 23:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is well written, but I don't think it's notable. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 04:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, nothing wrong with it being named after Jan Smuts, he was after all one of SA's greatest statesmen. It's also the most famous residence at UCT, and it's certainly notable enough both for that and its architectural significance. — Imp i 08:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I commented earlier before it was relisted, so not sure whether I should comment again. This a great article about a prominant part of the university. It would not merge well into the main university article. I suspect that if it was called Smuts College, nobody would have a problem. I think it would be a great shame if this was deleted. So, I'm now for a strong keep. --Bduke 09:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 12:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAI. Stifle 22:34, 21 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 Tacoma Narrows Bridge, contents have already been merged. D e ath phoenix 16:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tubby (dog)[edit]

Dogcruft. Why are westerners more interested in pets than people anyway? MacRusgail 16:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made me laugh, but seriously, don't ever post stuff about your dog on wikipedia Delete. Bobby1011 17:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dog that died 66 years ago... WP:PETS?--Isotope23 17:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nn-bio. Tagged as such. --Malthusian (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~.Redirect to Tacoma Narrows Bridge or Delete. It is already covered in the bridge's article. Poor Tubby. PJM 17:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above, terrified sole victim of "Galloping Gertie" but still just a mutt --Ruby 17:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really consider this a merge candidate, and it's unreferenced anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incindentally, it's already mentioned in Tacoma Narrows Bridge. PJM 19:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I drive over Sturdy Gertie every day, I could reference it, but it's going to be deleted. --Ruby 21:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor little non-notable Tubby. His mention at Tacoma Narrows Bridge should be more than sufficient. -- Krash (Talk) 21:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The Washington State Department of Transportation thinks Tubby is interesting enough to maintain a trivia page [21]. Given that the information is verifiable by a governmental department, what makes this non-notable? To me, it seems calling it "dogcruft" and saying that the article is about a "mutt" is a clear example of POV. -- hike395 08:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand the objective criterion for notability.. We have articles like Casula railway station, Sydney. Why is that article notable and not this one? --- hike395 08:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not convinced Casula station is that notable, but I suppose it's going to be around for a while. --MacRusgail 15:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about as a compromise, we Redirect to a Tubby section in the Tacoma Narrows Bridge article? -- hike395 15:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the most logical thing to do. --MacRusgail 11:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It's notable enough to be mentioned in the Tacoma Narrows Bridge article, but hard to justify that's it's notable enough for a standalone article which is very unlikely to be ever expanded. MartinRe 09:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge to Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Stifle 22:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Stifle Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 04:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most certainly notable for involvement in Galloping Gertie's collapse. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. DenisMoskowitz 18:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Krash who's comments were unnecessary but also rather humerous. --Mmeinhart 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To everyone who voted "Delete", if you agree with the compromise of redirecting to a Tubby section within the Tacoma Narrows Bridge article, please strikethrough your Delete vote and change to "Redirect". Thanks! -- hike395 18:57, 22 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 01:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming the Archetype[edit]

A new band! With a record! But not much else to say about themselves. Guy 17:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria... and shouldn't "Christian Death Metal" be "Resurrection Metal" or something?--Isotope23 17:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:NMG. PJM 17:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and isn't Christian Death Metal an oxymoron? --Ruby 18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Stifle 22:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Justin Eiler 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete because they have been on two nation-wide tours and are on a semi-major label. Plus they are quite popular in the metal scene.

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelwood Central High School[edit]

I am a graduate of Hazelwood Central High. I attended the school for the fall of 1995 to the Summer of 1999. I have a lot of fond memories of the school. With that having been said, however, I feel there is no need fot this article. Whomever wrote this article simply copy the section on history from Hazelwood School District. Therefore I move that the article on Hazelwood Central be removed. Christian_Historybuff Steve 17:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per obviously qualified nom. Bobby1011 17:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per generally accepted consensus that High Schools are inherently notable. Will put a cleanup on it though.--Isotope23 17:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up, per above. PJM 17:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't aware that there was such a consensus. Why only high schools? Bobby1011 17:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See WP:SCHOOL. Basically, any school article gets automatic immunity the moment it's created. I don't think the policy makes any sense either, but you wait and see; there's no way this article will get deleted. --Aaron 17:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even WP:SCHOOL says that no consensus was reached as to the validity of the proposal. There may be too much doubt to delete this article though. Bobby1011 17:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Consensus was never reached (and never will be reached IMO) but one of the things that in the past was generally agreed upon by quite a few people was that High Schools were notable. This was never accepted as a guideline for a variety of reasons and I'm not going to branch off on a rant about that. Suffice to say there is a strong enough school inclusionist movement that this will likely be kept. At least it isn't another Elementary or Middle school.--Isotope23 18:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The global importance of this school is not addressed, see WP:NOT. Cdcon 17:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no new information on this page that is not on the Hazelwood School District page. In fact that information and wording is the same. I would not object to a Hazelwood Central High Page that talked about Hazelwood sports, prinicplas and individual school history. However, this page is not any of those. This page could be renamed "The History of Hazelwood School District", but then this article is unnessacary since the district's history is on the District's main page. (Steve 17:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I'll just sit here and watch this school article get kept, as usual --Ruby 18:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High school --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For consistency and thoroughness. Honbicot 18:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Better written than a lot of existing HS entries. Besides, I had two dates with a girl from this school in 1973. Fan1967 18:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wasn't the newspaper from this school the subject of a Supreme Court free speech decision sometime in the 1990's? Perhaps someone more familiar with that can incorporate it into the article to help establish its notability. TMS63112 19:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Close, but the Kulhmeier decision (1988) involved Hazelwood East, not Central. Same district, wrong school. Fan1967 19:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frack WP:SCHOOL; let's vote reasonably. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my unwavering deletionist view towards unremarkable grammar-/middle-/highschools. -- Krash (Talk) 21:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unwavering is a pretty strong word. Surely there are some school articles that you consider notable? Turnstep 04:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What on earth is your point? Read what I wrote again. It's only unwavering for the non-notable/unremarkable schools. Like this one. Importance and notability must be asserted. This school has neither. -- Krash (Talk) 14:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Adrian and Krash, though I doubt it would matter if we collected 4000 delete votes. --Aaron 22:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Welcome, Steve, to the wonderful world of Wikipedia, where schools are a religious issue and no school article may be deleted, however bad it is. Guy 23:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep naturally Jcuk 23:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Comments I'm sorry, Guy. I do not understand what you just said. What possible way is deleting a page on a school a religious issue. As to thus who vote to keep the page: This issue is not reallly the deleteion of a High School Page. The issue is: "Do we really need a page that is merely a Xerox of another page. If you will read the history section of the Hazelwood School District main page and then read the Hazelwood Central High School page you will see that they are identical. This is why the Hazelwood Central High Page should be either written with material about the school or deleted entirely. (Steve 00:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Long and detailed discussions were held to try to agree a protocol for merging minor and unremarkable schools into larger articles for the school district. A small number of people refused on principle to accept anything other than having a separate article for every school and absolutely would not countenance compromise. No article on a verifiable school, however poorly written, however trivial, however small the stub might be, no article on a verifiable middle school or above will ever achieve consensus for delete, because there will always be schools inclusionists who will vote keep. You have, in essence, poked the anthill with a sharp stick. On the plus side, having insisted on saving every single school article, they are also pretty good about cleaning up the abysmal ones and at least leaving only verifiable information, albeit this is often simply a stub.

Just as nominating any Southern Baptist preacher for deletion will have you castigated as an atheist who wants to expunge all Christianity from Wikipedia, nominating a school can attract unwelcome attention from those who assume you know the history and are nominating in contempt of what they see as consensus (actually the consensus was simply to stop arguing about it and get on with writing an encyclopaedia). There really ought to be a section in the guide to deletion warning people never to nominate schools, it only ever generates acrimony. Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alot of schools are on Wikipedia. Just because you don't like the format means you have to delete. It can quite simply be solved by editing. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. Vain? Possibly, but that should be viewed as POV, and warrants edits. Schools are all over this website, they are institutions of education and hence should be on this site. I think you would have to try VERY hard to find a school that is not on Wikipedia. Yanksox 00:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not trying to turn this into a forum for the WP:SCHOOL debate, but...I tested Yanksox's hypothesis and the first high school I searched for, Runcorn State High School, doesn't exist on wiki. Maybe he meant only schools in the states or whatever, but that's irrelevant; most schools are probably not on wikipedia at all. The second one I tried, the Gymnasium I attended in Germany Friedrich-Ludwig-Jahn Gymnasium doesn't have an article either. Nor does it deserve one. Are we going to list every department of transport and centrelink as well? Bobby1011 02:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Copyvio of this [22]. ergot 02:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've taken out the history section, which was not only a copyvio as noted, but a duplicate of the other article (as also noted above). It was also poorly written and somehwat POV. The article is now truly a stub, where it could be argued that it was not before. Turnstep 04:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school Catchpole 12:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. If it is deleted it will be recreated at some time and probably not randomly selected for deletion nomination next time around, so what is the point of deleting this start ? Choalbaton 18:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of high schools have articles and it seems like a good way to bring people to Wikipedia. Scranchuse 18:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a verified school stub. The article no longer duplicates the district page information, for those who raised that concern. Turnstep 19:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all valid High Schools. — RJH 19:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as high school. Pepsidrinka 21:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all high schools. Honbicot 16:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold and merge with Hazelwood School District, per Steve's comment. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scranchuse. Kappa
Delete. At present this article has nothing which can't be found by reading the school district article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 24 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 01:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Bray[edit]

Very long and elaborate vanity page. Bobby1011 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Long-winded vanity or hoax. He sure does look a young 129, doesn't he. PJM 17:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Long-winded vanity or hoax (Steve 17:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per above. Monkeyman 17:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ruby 18:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Jamesmmu and Bdangol seem to be playing "hilarious" games with the Manchester Metropolitan University article, per the edit history. See also The Great Kathmandu. Tonywalton | Talk 19:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pn DaGizza^Chat ^© 07:53, 25 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 non-notable corporation. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Kathmandu[edit]

Tonywalton proposed this for deletion but the notice was removed, so I'm taking it here instead. Blatant advert for a non-notable restaurant. --Malthusian (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a phone book. --Aaron 17:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't forget to stop in for the 'Good food...Cheap.....clean....low low prices'. Monkeyman 17:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aaron --Ruby 18:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. See also Buda Dangol — pity {{nn-curryhouse}} isn't a speedy criterion. Tonywalton | Talk 18:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.If possible speedily. Advertisment. --Jan Smolik 20:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a great number of things. Many apply in this case. -- Krash (Talk) 21:18, 20 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 Lost (TV series), this seems to be a niche term not really appropriate for Internet slang. D e ath phoenix 16:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The addition has been removed. I don't contest the removal of the text (that is to say, I don't care), and the history is still in the original redirect. --D e ath phoenix 19:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMGWTFPOLARBEAR[edit]

Somewhat notable neologism. I wasn't quite sure whether to speedy it, so I put it here. Bobby1011 17:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentGoogling it turns up 13,500 pages. Is that not notable enough? --Echo was a groupie 17:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How'd you get 13k? I only see 336.[23] -- Krash (Talk) 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe I'm insane. I swear, there were 13,500 earlier when I did the search. I swear. Or I think there were.. I don't know how it could have gone down so much so quickly. Maybe I've finally gone mad.

But they were there...! I know it!--Echo was a groupie 03:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSee WP:NEO. Bobby1011 17:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Lost article --Ruby 18:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. per above. Cdcon 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to appropriate section. Jaxal1 19:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OMGWTFBBQ!!! Delete as neologistic. At worst, redirect to Internet slang. -- Krash (Talk) 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love Lost and lurk a bunch of boards... but this is a niche neologism with no representation outside of Lost Board posters. Merge a definintion to Internet slang if anyone cares to, but historical context on a separate page isn't really necessary.--Isotope23 21:33, 20 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 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenWorks Pictures[edit]

I orginally placed a prod tag on it but the creator removed it, so I'm placing it in AFD, non-notable film company Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not notable. Bobby1011 18:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-notable independent film companies, especially the ones that can't spell "independent". Tonywalton | Talk 19:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Sandstein 19:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. MikeWazowski 20:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tonywalton --Ruby 20:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn DaGizza^Chat ^© 07:50, 25 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 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James G. Hunt[edit]

This page is vain and the user has been using shamless self-promotion since day one Yanksox 18:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I've speedied the article. Bobby1011 18:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant claim of notability. Print out Wikipedia:Autobiography in 100 copies and hit the user over the head with it. Thue | talk 18:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7, as tagged by Bobby1011. PJM 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have removed the speedy tag as there are assertions of notability in that he has been a member of faculty at a law school. While this is not enough to establish notability which is why I am voting delete, it is an assertion. Capitalistroadster 19:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. At least as notable as, say, List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch: The Series. As for it being autobiographical, so what? Would he be more notable if I had written the article? Tonywalton | Talk 19:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in the least: the "autobiographical" helps explain why in God's name this thing came about in the first place. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hes an associate lawyer at an insurance co? big deal undefined --Ruby 21:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Associate lawyer at an insurance co? big deal --Ruby 21:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly borderline Speedy Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn-bio. Counsel at an insurance company? Been there 8 years? Went to such-and-such a school? Yeesh. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn, extrem vanity. So what that he's a lawyer. he was a uni staff member, but does not claim a pHd, so he probably did something like mark the exams. nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Resume. Scranchuse 18:37, 21 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 del WP:CSD A6 (attack page).mikka (t) 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bifidus regularis[edit]

Author repeatedly removed Speedy tag. Attack page. Jaxal1 18:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Bobby1011 18:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is probably best know as the name of the active compound of the new Dannon Activia yogurt. The current article's contents are silly. Cdcon 18:39, 20 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 01:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chain Gang of Salem[edit]

Zero evidence of album for sale anywhere. Four iffy Google hits. This is either extremely non-notable or, more likely, a hoax. Uucp 18:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. I got 257,000 iffy google hits. Delete. Bobby1011 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you check "chain gang of salem" (with the quotes) you get 15 hits, as opposed to 300,000+ without. Non-notable, and the article is very poorly written. Cdcon 18:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 21:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cdcon --Ruby 21:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. Stifle 22:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn DaGizza^Chat ^© 07:49, 25 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, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur lightning[edit]

Despite suggestions to the contrary in the text of this page, I can find no evidence that this group has actually had any commercial releases. Seems like a pure vanity page. Uucp 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteBobby1011 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ruby 21:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. Stifle 22:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn DaGizza^Chat ^© 07:48, 25 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. Mailer Diablo 01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonnewaug High School[edit]

Sucks. --Kennyisinvisible 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails even proposal for WP:SCHOOL, as it has less than 3 sentences, no picture and no interwikilink. Bobby1011 18:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually WP:SCHOOL says "If it meets none of these criteria, but is still verifiable, it should be merged into the appropriate district..." It doesn't call for deletion, but merging instead (that's the whole concept of the compromise). --Rob 00:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, the nomination itself sucks. Kennyisinvisible, you should make a better case than that when you post a nom in AFD, regardless of how you feel about the subject. PJM 18:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be a stub, but there is plenty of precedent for keeping article on High Schools. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 18:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OhNoitsJamie. Chairman S. | Talk 19:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and send to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools James084 19:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ~~speedy~~ keep, per James084. PJM 19:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not speedy K'able with a vote for deletion extant, at least not without a larger majority. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out (applicability rule #3). PJM 21:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every school doesn't actually merit an article, and the precedent stating otherwise is goofy. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High School, but cleanup.--Isotope23 21:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All school articles get kept, even one room log cabin ones --Ruby 21:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator should familiarize self with WP:DP. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and again keep Jcuk 23:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a verified and notable school. Turnstep 04:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful start. Choalbaton 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of schools have articles and so they should. Scranchuse 18:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — RJH 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup Schools should be listed but this one's a bit sloppy. Some cleanup work needed. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 04:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all high schools. Honbicot 16:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, informative school stub. Kappa 23:56, 23 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 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wowk[edit]

Deleted as copyvio, Recreated/rewritten; relisted. mikka (t) 18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable cryogenic biotechnologist. The article is a resume, slightly modified to avoid copyvio. mikka (t) 18:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CEO would be notable, chief scientist is not --Ruby 21:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is a major person in cryonics. He has been a part of both the Cryonics and Molecular nanotechnology articles since 2004, so he is a well established person. It is not a copyvio either, all of the wording and sentences are different from the original source. (Cardsplayer4life 22:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I surfed onto this wikipedia page from another page about cryonics while doing research. I am not an "expert" user of wikipedia or anything, but it did help me out. Take that for what it is worth, but it was useful to me. (130.161.82.41 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep — No evidence of copyvio. Original author should be given a chance to pull in more research to flesh out the article and rely less on original source.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 21, 2006, 02:37 (UTC)

Thanks, I just added some more info, and will continue to research and add info. (Cardsplayer4life 03:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep revised - new edit looks a lot better. Tawker 22:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — as rewritten. I have discussed the article with Dr. Wowk and he was very displeased with the previous versions, and was not unhappy with having them deleted. I do believe, however, that Dr. Wowk is a very capable scientist whose work is noteworthy, and that he should be included in Wikipedia. I have discussed that matter with him and we have produced the text that has just replaced the version mostly written by Cardsplayer4life. I hope that the other editors find this version acceptable. I think Dr. Wowk is going to be even more recognized for his future work than for the work he has already done. --Ben Best 15:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very acceptable, since I do not know the man personally, I did not know he was unhappy with the previous versions. I just felt that he deserved a wiki entry, and am happy he is now pleased with the current version. (Cardsplayer4life 20:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Even in the rewritten version there is no evidence of his recognition. His own writings do no count. In what books other reputable people give credits to Wowk? mikka (t) 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is certification of recognition by other scientists. The rewritten version should handle the copyright violation concerns. I am wondering if the former votes for deletion are now valid, or need to be reviewed. Also, I am wondering how many of those voting for deletion are qualified to evaluate the work of a cryobiologist/medical physicist. --Ben Best 15:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the Talk:Brian Wowk page a number of references made by others to the work of Dr. Wowk. I hope this indicates to you the high regard with which others view his work. And I believe that it should satisfy your requirements. I can add that I know there are hundreds (if not thousands) of people who are not all scientists who nonetheless hold the work of Dr. Wowk in high regard. --Ben Best 00:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep revised - He is not just another cryobiologist, he is a major name in the field. The original article did not make his importance clear, but it now surely does. If anyone who has voted for deletion truly thinks that being "co-developer with Greg Fahy [no less] of key technologies enabling cryopreservation of large and complex tissues, including the first successful vitrification and transplantation of a mammalian organ (kidney)" is not "notable", I would truly love to hear your reasons! While Ben Best's documenting of references to him in the media helps make the point, his work with Fahy on vitrification really does not need to be bolstered by "fame references"... anyone who knows the meaning of the words in the quote above (first paragraph in the article as of this writing) should be able to see why an article on Wowk in Wikipedia is completely appropriate. Allan Randall 02:13, 24 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. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:19] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Scott Wells[edit]

Mere candidates for state office are not notable enough for inclusion as anyone with a few hundred dollars may become a candidate. —WAvegetarian^TALK_CONTRIBS^EMAIL 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So only people with more than a few hundred dollars are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? How fascist of you. --Cwithers 19:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify since you are apparently out to vilify me. The only requirements for running as a candidate are residency and some cash. I obviously don't feel that either of those warrant inclusion. Why don't you bother reading what I actually wrote instead of making random accusations. I take your insinuation of fascism as an unwarranted ad hominem attack based on willful ignorance of what I have written. You are getting dangerously close to Godwin's Law for no reason. —WAvegetarian^TALK_CONTRIBS^EMAIL 20:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ruby 21:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, commenters on AfD must learn to read. -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will read what you wrote instead of making random accusations. You said that "mere" candidates for state office are not notable enough for inclusion as "anyone with a few hundred dollars may be become a candidate." How did I misconstrue that? You never once mentioned residency or any other requirement in your first posting. You simply said that anyone with a little bit of cash can run for office. By the way, do you consider yourself so important that I would just be out to vilify you? I have no idea who you are, are have absolutely no desire to find out. But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and tell yourself that I'm trying to stand up to your awesome power, and that I'm failing miserably because you have marked this article for deletion. I'll go along with it.--69.128.234.209 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what makes something worth keeping on a free site that has no real merit to the actual opinion of a person. You may think it does not merit mention but who says I care what you have to say, and why should your pages be here either then we can save some cyberspace and remove wikpedia entirely. Just on your pronciple thought of what has merit and what does not.

I am not out to get you and have no feelings about you positive or negative. Actually, I guess I am slightly leaning towards the dislike side as you called me a fascist. I don't claim to have awesome power. In fact, I have less power than others who have commented on this AFD as I am not a Wikipedia:Administrator. How did you misconstrue what I said? You implied that I had said that moneyed individuals were notable. I had in fact said the opposite. Our inclusion standards for biographies can be found at WP:BIO. If you feel that this article warrants inclusion given those guidelines, please say so. I am sorry that you took my nomination of this article as a personal affront; it was by no means meant to be. I am a new pages patroller and try to adhere to our policies regarding deletion and notability to the best of my ability. There is precedent that running for office is not in and of itself notable enough for inclusion. —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 20:28, 24 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. D e ath phoenix 17:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Holt[edit]

Delete Non-notable, and has never been notable. Does not conform to any of the requirements on WP:MUSIC as far as I can see. TomPhil 19:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If only to tweak Simon --Ruby 21:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually he proved Simon right. TomPhil 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TomPhil. Stifle 22:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Punkmorten 11:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as he has attained notable status through his singing career. Bobby1011 13:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article mentions only an appearance on a TV show and a single song that entered the charts at number 35. That doesn't make him notable in my book. --Thunk 20:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep as per Bobby1011 Jporcaro 21:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge It's very much a 15 minutes of fame thing - nobody knows anything about him aside from what was on television, nor does anyone seem to care. If it really is "notable" it would be better served by going in as a short footnote in the Simon Cowell article. MSJapan 21:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If someone wants to add this to the Simon Cowell article, that would probably be OK. dbtfz ^talk 01:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely notable, but certainly no importance. -- Krash (Talk) 15:03, 27 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 01:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ULAN[edit]

Delete, since it's not needed at all: It's an ultrashort stub about two different topics, with poor writing, title all in caps, partly improper information, AND: there already exists a disambiguation page for this (Ulan) --667NotB 18:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page is a mess, I don't even really see how relevant it is, if at all. Yanksox 20:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ruby 21:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 22:32, 21 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 03:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Ahmad and Dr Sami Salem Ahmad[edit]

"Sami Ahmad" surgeon only turns up 67 hits on Google, this person doesn't seem to be notable. —WAvegetarian^TALK_CONTRIBS^EMAIL 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I checked "Sami Ahmad" Doktor, in case there were German articles about him, and found nothing. --Thunk 19:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try "Chirurg" (surgeon) rather than "Doktor" and the pickings are rather richer, for instance Roser Klinik Stuttgart and a more general listing. Still doesn't look that notable, though. Tonywalton | Talk 20:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have deleted it immediately if I had noticed it was a duplicate. Deb 20:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thunk --Ruby 21:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Claims to be a director at the Jordan Hospital in Amman, yet the staff list of that Hospital Does not mention him. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per this he's "Leitender Chirurg des Jordan-Zentrums für Adipositas, Amman" (Leading Surgeon at the Jordan Centre for Obesity, Amman); the Jordan Hospital reference may or may not merely be a mistranslation in the article. Delete, by the way (I forgot to say that before). Tonywalton | Talk 15:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable; looks like a personal advert. --Cymsdale 10:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Delete: Dr Sami Salem Ahmad turned out to have nothinh to do with Jordan Hospital. He owns and directs his own private centre for GI and bariatric surgery only, in Jordan. (website for his centre is drsami-clinic.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meico (talk • contribs) .
Should not be deleted: Dr Sami Salem Ahmad turned out to have nothing to do with Jordan Hospital. He owns and directs his own private centre for GI and bariatric surgery only, in Jordan, it seems that there was a misunderstanding because his centre is called Jordan Centre for Gastrointestinal and Obesity Surgery (JCGOS)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meico (talk • contribs) .
Why deleting it: I live in Jordan. Dr Sami Salem Ahmad is very famous here. Even The Arabian Super star (Diana Karazoon) is one of his patients. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meico (talk • contribs) .

Comment: In Jordan, Dr Sami Salem Ahmad seems to be like Dr Ivo Pitanguy in Brazil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meico (talk • contribs) .

Never Delete: I'm a patient of Dr Ahmad, as well as a good and well reputaed surgeon. He appears every now and then on TV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meico (talk • contribs) .
Why Delete? Dr Sami Salem Ahmad really appears to be well considered as a surgeon, with a good reputation. These are some German help groups which consider him[24], [25]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wello (talk • contribs) 16:38, February 23, 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Dr Sami Salem introduced the new method of anterior hernia repair for morbid obese patients. (Article in the obesity surgery journal)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wello (talk • contribs) 16:43, February 23, 2006 (UTC)

Should not be deleted Notable Character, saw him on TV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.160.162 (talk • contribs)
Comment: Listed as a well reputated bariatric surgeon on the atemedic website http://www.artemedic.de/Dr__Ahmad.121.0.html--Meico 11:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete non notable bio page. As per nom. --OscarTheCat ^talk 13:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made the page, and put the least amount of information I could get so (I deleted the bio information)--Meico 15:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't remove the fact that it's an article about a non-notable person (WP:BIO). If the article is about yourself (which I suspect it is), then it's also vanity and an advertisment. --Cymsdale 15:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted-If Colt McCoy can have a page dedicated for himself why not this Muslim guy?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.246.3 (talk • contribs)

The only reason Coly McCoy has a page dedicated to himself is because no one has noticed it... until now. --Cymsdale 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that a surgeon having 5 or 6 operations a day wouldn't have time to scratch his head, so how would you expect him to spend a great deal of time making himself a page he may never need (Cymsdale)...--Wello 16:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I cannot prove that the page was created by you, I'll have to stick with nn and advert. --Cymsdale 16:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the article Cymsdale, didn't you read above???--Meico 17:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PJM 16:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page was made by meico, so you dont have to prove anything Cymsdale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.160.162 (talk • contribs)

Should not be deleted: I belive he's notable. Wrote 3 books (Obesity and its effects, Obesity Surgery and Life after Obesity Surgery), All 3 books come as a package and are present in every library in Amman, as written on the cover of every book--Meico 17:00, 25 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 01:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazreth[edit]

fails WP:WEB notability guidelines —WAvegetarian^TALK_CONTRIBS^EMAIL 19:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shamless self promotion
Delete self-promotion as noted above --Ruby 21:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:20, 21 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. D e ath phoenix 17:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperzine[edit]

Pure website advertisement. Notability not established. Hurricane111 19:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Jaxal1 19:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
recommend researching before assuming anything— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smorsepluggy (talk • contribs)
perhaps the site specific references could be toned down, or deleted— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.134.166 (talk • contribs)
- Comment It's still a non-notable neologism.Jaxal1 19:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No real context to even determine what this is in reference to. Borderline nonsense as written.--Isotope23 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the concept of hyperzine may be neological, but the word is a legitamate coinage for an observable phenomenon— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.134.166 (talk • contribs)
Gene Fowler and Stephen Morse are both well known editors, poets and publishers during the San Francisco renaissance, and although the word is new, they are not. Deleting this would be the equivalent of deleting an entry by Buckminster Fuller because his concept was hard to understand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirit1948 (talk • contribs)
- Comment It is interesting to note that every single reference to either Gene Fowler and Steven Morse currently in Wikipedia were added by (the appropriately named) Smorsepluggy and 63.231.134.166 within the past 48 hours. It may be worth looking into their notability. Any San Francisco historians around? Jaxal1 01:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the site, and edited what appeared to be some badly written and hyped prose. I believe the changes should do away with original objection of blatant advertising (that objection had some validity).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirit1948 (talk • contribs)
Delete nn periodical which isn't even published, just distributed as ones and zeros --Ruby 21:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're comments are off topic. The discussion is about hyperzine as a word, not whether or not a web publication can be called a publication because it's written in binary as opposed to alphabetical ink code — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.134.166 (talk • contribs)

I agree as far as that goes. After all, the New York Times is "just distributed as light-absorbent chemicals on paper". "The medium is the message", or something. Hoewver your article appears to fail Wikipedia's criterion of verifiability. I vote delete pending your citing some useful sources and explaining why this is not just a non-notable neologism. Tonywalton | Talk 13:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Spirit1948/Smorsepluggy/63.231.134.166, please sign your edits. Jaxal1 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excuse my ignorance but I don't know how to sign — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.134.166 (talk • contribs)
- Scroll down in the edit screen. It'll tell you. Or click the little blue 'unsigned' next to all of your edits.Jaxal1 23:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I am obviously new to this process, I do not understand "per nom", nor do I really understand the problem with my entry. I certainly am not interested in getting in to some sort of pitched battle over a word, but I am a bit of a wordsmith and find this process intriguing. I'd appreciate discussion.

216.49.220.19 13:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Per nom" is shorthand for "Per what the nominator of this article said", "per" being, basically, "according to". Read it as "I agree with wot 'e said". :-) As for the problem with your entry, see the suggested links such as non-notable neologism and verifiability. To put it another way, if Buckminster Fuller privately used the term "slenge" to describe the runny white of a fried egg this would not be notable, (or, probably, verifiable) purely on the strength of Fuller himself having said it. "Hyperzine" isn't (or appears not to be) in any sort of wide use except by the proponents mentioned in your article. This isn't hard and fast, but the criterion is somewhat like a word getting into the OED; printed sources have to be cited (I'd expect that "printed" doesn't really imply "in ink") and self-referential sources aren't valid. There's nothing wrong with the word "Hyperzine" per se, but the article doesn't begin to explain why this word is of importance outside the community of three or four people who coined it. Tonywalton | Talk

Thank you for the very complete and understandable explanation of the decision making process for entries such as hyperzine. I confess to being new to this, and I can now understand how the original entry was deficient. I have attempted to restate the explanation in a more acceptable manner. Am I on the right track? 216.49.220.19 17:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as rewritten

Spirit1948 01:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP' The concept of interlinking virtual and literal media is well described by the word, hyperzine, as opposed to zine (which is slightly pejorative), and is closer to the magazine traditionally associated with poetry journals

63.231.134.166 16:55, 25 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 01:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Salvation Army Johnsonville[edit]

Non-notable local club; Wikipedia isn't your club's website host. Sandstein 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Each town's Salvation Army chapter does not get a WP article --Ruby 21:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck to them - if anywhere needs a bit of redemption it's Wellington. But delete this article. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 22:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual local clubs, churches, etc. don't merit articles, unless something is notable about that chapter. Carlossuarez46 21:12, 22 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 seleted per nom/consesus. --Alf ^melmac 00:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyFrostzone[edit]

Originally prodded without comment. Moving to AfD instead. Looks like Spam. James084 19:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Sandstein 19:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is simply informationable and the content on it strictkly is relevant to the topic. All logos are relavent to the subject as well as the link. All information is not as much advertisment as it is information on the service. Delection would be a mistake for an organization who is intending to allow information to be read and written by visitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frostzone (talk • contribs)

Delete I prodded this as advertisement by user myfrostzone. That was removed and someone else re-prodded it. Dlyons493 Talk 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertise your blog somewhere else --Ruby 21:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete The opposite of an advertisment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frostzone (talk • contribs)
Delete as advert and WP:WEB. If it was anyway serious it would have its own domain name. Stifle 22:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam; delete the image, too. ergot 23:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete' In defense, The Frostzone Company offers 25+ services and cant have a domain name for each. 72.192.27.3 00:50, 22 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 (aka pwn3d, erase, wipe) as per PJM, on Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. Mailer Diablo 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stapes (aka Scott Messorano, DJ Mod Scott, Scott Stapes) as writer/singer/songwriter/musician/actor from Staten Island, New York.[edit]

Originally prodded without comment. I just don't know what to say about this article. It seems the title says it all. Anyway some notability issues here. James084 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletejust because of the title, and also as unsalvageable barf. Sandstein 20:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMG and WP:BIO. Also, this babble-fest could possibly be a hoax. Here's what I find: [26] ,[27] ,[28] , and [29]. PJM 20:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It burns us...Jaxal1 20:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete because the title...is...just...uh....--Banana04131 20:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PJM.--Isotope23 20:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above --Ruby 21:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PJM. A title is not reason to delete an article. If the title is what bothers you, vote move. Otherwise, judge the article on its merit. Pepsidrinka 15:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PJM. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:15, 25 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 01:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flaphooks[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. And has a Geocities website. Judging by that, it's some teenage nonsense.

Delete: Either a hoax or one of the world's least notable corporations. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per savidan --Ruby 22:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried to {{PROD}} it for essentially the same reason, but the article's creator removed that tag. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:23, 21 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. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:21] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Amber Marie[edit]

non-notable, Playboy online model with no significant other credits Monicasdude 20:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. {prod} objection, expanded article adds no significant claim to notability. Monicasdude 20:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You've got to get a cover or centerfold to be notable...--Isotope23 20:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the second n-n topless model named Amber today, and this one is less noticeable than the other one. Fan1967 20:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...uh-oh, look at Category:Playboy Cyber Girls... there's over 150 articles like this! Time for a group nomination, I'd say. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody added entries for every girl who took her top off on Playboy's web site? Oy. Fan1967 14:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, they don't qualify for a group nomination, since a small but nontrivial percentage have minimally notable other credits. Monicasdude 16:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently User:Bubbaspuds has made it his mission to catalog all these models, even if it's the only time they've ever appeared anywhere, which would certainly seem to make them NN. Fan1967 16:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say a solid 50 of the "Cyber Girl" models in the category right now have other notable credits to their name, and the thing with these models is that many go on to become Playmates or go into some other form of valid showbiz/entertainment (wrestling, movie actresses, etc...). Cyber Girls are arguably just as popular as Playmates these days and all the Playmates are "allowed" to have their own entry. Maybe it's overkill to do a page for every one, but I think the ones created now should be let be (considering that it will be very hard to justly eliminate all the ones people feel are NN, since some may truly not be NN), and the standard should be set that in the future only those who go on to add more notable credits to their name can be given a seperate entry. Just my thought. DOAsaturn 10:37, 24 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 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: A New Beginning[edit]

Delete Non-notable fan film and vanity listing. Google search still brings up only a handful of hits, nearly all related to the listing on Wikipedia. Filmmakers also hosting film on Wikipedia, in violation of WP:NOT.MikeWazowski 20:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination transcluded debate from first AfD for this article. Moved nom and existing vote to new page.

Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fanfic movie. I can't WP:V the Wired Claims and as stated in nom, Google hits are primarily from wikipedia article. No evidence of notability. Furthermore, hosting their film on Wikimedia is just bad form.--Isotope23 20:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm pretty sure Wired and/or Wired News have never written about this project. They did cover an unrelated project called New Voyages a while back, but that was substantially more notable. No vote. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Isotope --Ruby 21:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fan films are a tiny bit more notable than fanfic, but not by much. Note to closing admin: please delete the WP-hosted movie file as well, it's massive and we don't want to give the impression that WP is a free file hosting service. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle 22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; the article also has the potential to cause confusion since I believe this is one of the rumored titles for the rumored Star Trek XI. 23skidoo 15:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. PJM 15:32, 23 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 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West_Country_Minis[edit]

Non-notable club, was Proposed for Deletion and nominated for speedy deletion, but both tags were removed. No alexa ranking on their website, only 12 google hits on "west country minis". Xyzzyplugh 20:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Uucp 20:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn local Minicoop club --Ruby 21:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert, quite a mess. Stifle 22:20, 21 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 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamstar_Headquarters[edit]

Delete. Non-notable web forum. Xyzzyplugh 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Uucp 20:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn forum with no alexa rank --Ruby 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article, just 111 members. For a forum to get its own article, it would need membership well into the thousands (and also have an Alexa rank and media coverage to back it up). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, 21 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 03:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Deahl[edit]

Vanity, advertisement, nn. Delete --Ardenn 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete co-editor of unremarkable publishing house in Canada --Ruby 20:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, co-editor of notable Canadian small press specializing in poetry. See discussion below re Unfinished Monument Press. Monicasdude 21:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep President of the Canadian Poetry Association is good enough for me Dlyons493 Talk 22:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep James Deahl is one of the more important Canadian poets and publishers in Ontario. He and I are both Americans and I have no qualms in saying that we are insulted that you take Canadian contributions to literature so lightly. WayneRay 23:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
- Considering that the nominator is Canadian, this comment is laughable. Bearcat 08:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support that he's a reasonably notable poet and editor. I can't claim he's someone I've personally heard of, but a Google search brings his name up in direct conjunction with more than enough notable Canadian literary figures (Milton Acorn, Al Purdy, etc.) that I'm comfortable judging this to be a keep. In fact, there's already a reference to him in Acorn's Wikipedia article, which has been sitting there unwikified since 2002. Bearcat 08:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WayneRay 16:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)WayneRay I have taken upon myself to update and wikify (although it seems I need more experience at it LOL) the Canadian Poets, i will look at the 2002 entry you mentioned. I have more wiki time now.[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. Shanel 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished Monument Press[edit]

Vanity, advertisement, nn. Delete --Ardenn 20:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn press, published only 36 works --Ruby 20:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, article is neither vanity nor advertising, subject is apparently notable "small press" specializing in Canadian poetry. Its older books are considered significant by antiquarian booksellers(e.g., [30], and Google searches show its titles remarked on in poetry magazines [31] [32] and listed in nontrivial CVs [33]. Monicasdude 21:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable. [34] -- Krash (Talk) 22:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately notable in an admittedly fairly specialist area Dlyons493 Talk 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this press, is significant in Canadian publishing history. WayneRay 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)RUBY Ruby?? who is this critical person and Ardenn??? I have been doing my best to update and add significant poets and publishers on Wiki, Chris is as I am an American living in Canada so why all this lack of knowledge and annimosity towards expatriots?? NO Deletion[reply]
This is notable enough to keep (though Wayne might wanna add the Milton Acorn publications if he wants to make it more bulletproof.) Bearcat 08:10, 25 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. Shanel 03:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Faiers[edit]

Unverified. Wikipedia isn't origional research. Ardenn 20:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete founder of unremarkable publishing outfit in Canada --Ruby 20:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Never heard a bio called original research before... savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, founder of notable Canadian small press specializing in poetry. See discussion above re Unfinished Monument Press. As for "original research," nominator has track record of applying inappropriate tags in AfD discussions, and contents of article verifiable by simple Google search. Monicasdude 21:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable. It's verifiable, but WP:VAIN and WP:OR don't really apply here. Applying incorrect criteria for deletion doesn't really help the case, but that's no reason to automatically keep an offending article. A simple Google search lands only 650 results.[35] -- Krash (Talk) 22:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a keep, per Monicasdude. Stifle 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable adjudging this a keep. Again, one doesn't have to be a household name to be sufficiently notable; involvement in one of the more important Canadian small press houses passes my keep line. Bearcat 08:47, 25 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 03:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navtej Bharati[edit]

Unverified, nn. Wikipedia isn't original research. Ardenn 20:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won "best poet" award in India three times, I'm not ready to delete this unless it can be shown to be a hoax --Ruby 20:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not sure of the status of Best Poet of the State but enough Ghits to verify his existence. And he surely must be one of the most notable Indo-Canadian poets :-) Dlyons493 Talk 22:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Unverified and nn as mentioned above. Also, this article and the article refering to its co-author Ajmer Rode have both been started by the same ip 24.69.255.205. The other artcicle was also edited by User:Ajmerrode whose main contribs are to that article and thus violating WP:AUTO. I also believe that the same person has edited from both the ip and the account as well. Some one may want to nominate Ajmer Rode as well for deletion as most of the google hits are from the forks. --Gurubrahma 16:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP WayneRay 00:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

- WayneRay 23:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)WayneRay I had spent a considerable amount of time adding and updating the Canadian Poets and Publishers within Wikipedia. I have been busy at work for the past two months and haven't logged on to check on things. One of my authors, who has a wiki page Navtej Bharati, said both his page and mine were up for deletion?? I looked on my publisher page HMS Press and it was only updated until 1995. Mr. Bharati (who incidently is one of London Ontario's largest book publishers) book came out in 2002 so therefore was not in my authors list. I had re-written HMS Press in accordance to one of Wiki's editors and the new layout was accepted in 2005, NOW you say it is up for deletion. You guys dont like Canadians?? I don't understand the logic. I can update the information and add the next 50 books I did and his name will be on the list for verification. Please explain. I have been publishing Canadian and American poets since 1982 and have about 150 publications. ???[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia:Notability (people) says that authors with an audience of over 5000 are considered to be notable. I presume that Bharati has such an audience, especially considering that his books are in the Library and Archives Canada. The article contains no original research. If this must be kept in AfD, it should be relisted. Ardric47 03:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this really should be a speedy keep. Nomination is clearly bad faith, if not actively dishonest, and seems part of a vandalous spree to delete Canadian cultural figures who aren't "ethnic" Canadians. Information in article is not OR and is easily verified. Subject of article is well-known poet, recently described by CBC as "[one] of the world's most acclaimed Punjabi poets." [36] Monicasdude 14:37, 23 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 Deleted via WP:PROD by JeremyA. -- JLaTondre 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jole big bike ride[edit]

~~I prodded this, that was removed and another editor restored it. I'm not sure what the protocol is so bringing it here for clarification and/or deletion.~~ *Delete as per my nom.

Withdraw AfD nom but leave it on prod where it belongs. Dlyons493 Talk 20:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the {{prod}} removal/restoration in the page's history. ×Meegs 02:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, think I got that wrong somehow - sorry. What's best now, withdraw AfD and let prod take its course? Dlyons493 Talk
  - Works for me. If the {{prod}} had been removed and restored, re-removing it and bringing the article here would've been the thing to do. ×Meegs 03:30, 21 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 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-opertition[edit]

This was originally prodded; however, the prod tag was removed without comment and very little was added to the article. This still looks like Neologism. James084 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I get 680 hits on google, and some of them actually do not point back to here --Ruby 21:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for, oddly enough, the same reason given above by Ruby.[37] 680's not very remarkable to me. -- Krash (Talk) 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. 308 hits on google when in quotes. Monkeyman 22:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Stifle 22:17, 21 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 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Glove Entertainment[edit]

I tagged this PROD a few days ago but an Anon IP removed this. This is a recreation of a page that was AfD'd a few months ago, albeit with additional content. Detroit music label with one minorly notable artist who will not be releasing any further material (he is deceased). Also has a public access show on local cable. All in all, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Delete.--Isotope23 21:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn label --Ruby 21:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The pile of TV listings does it for me. Stifle 22:17, 21 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 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action dan[edit]

This "movie" has no hits on google and has every appearance of being a spoof File Éireann 21:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly false. Delete. Fightindaman 22:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax article --Ruby 22:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. -- Krash (Talk) 22:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. (I clicked on the wrong edit and thought I was voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerostaphral.)-- Krash (Talk) 22:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No explanation needed. CrypticBacon 08:28, 25 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 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerostaphral[edit]

The was prodded as unverifiable--gets zero google hits. An anonymous contributor added some substance and removed the prod tag. They also added an external link to the corporation, only the link didn't go anywhere. It seems likely that this is a non-existent company, or somebody's pet project that hasn't made it off the ground. Unless this can be verified, I vote delete. NickelShoe 21:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh yeah I want to fly on an airplane made by a high school student --Ruby 22:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. -- Krash (Talk) 22:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-proclaimed WP:NFT violation. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I Have heard from of the builder aerostaphral. My uncle from somewhere up north in maine said that aerostaphral is baced in alton bay, NH, and that they build ultralites but are planning a larger aircraft called SpacelinerOne. Hopefully i can prove to be at least one varifiable source so i vote dont delete. If anyone has any questions or something, please feel free to email me at [email protected]. Thanks alot
- Comment FYI, Downeaster is the creator of the article. NickelShoe 14:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JetWave Airlines are a virtual airline not a real physical airline and so I suspect that the other airlines mentioned are also the virtual counterparts. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:03, 21 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; nomination withdrawn. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot effect[edit]

Fan created "effect" from Slashdot. I personally don't believe it needs its own article. There is ample information (in a non-slashdottish fasion) in Web_traffic#Traffic_overload. The terminology used in this article is mostly fan-created. Kareeser|^Talk! 22:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest nom be withdrawn for speedy keep; WP:SNOW Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When the history of the internet is written, this will be one of the most phenomenal developments. ~~The link in the nom is red anyway.~~ savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I heard of the "Slashdot effect" before I knew what Slashdot was. --AySz88 ^-^ 22:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this extremely common (186K)[38] phrase. It has a jargon file entry[39], and has been the subject of notable research[40][41][42] Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I withdraw my nomination I hadn't realized how widespread it was until I read the talk page. I apologize. Kareeser|^Talk! 22:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed. You acted in good faith -- thank you for working to keep Wikipedia tidy. Don't let one oversight stop you! :)

Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:14, 20 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 00:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cuneo[edit]

Non-notable band member Naconkantari e|t||c|m 22:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 22:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because as the article says, "Chris is more known for his bizzare personality rather than his music" and we don't host bizarre-personality articles. --Ruby 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per CSD A7. James084 01:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:39, 21 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 00:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hygge[edit]

Dicdef, non-notable band/music project, moved to afd after prod tag was removed O bli (Talk) 22:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unremarkable. Potential vanity too. -- Krash (Talk) 22:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Monkeyman 23:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:40, 21 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 00:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Are Mammals Too Association[edit]

Notability has yet to be established. —WAvegetarian^TALK_CONTRIBS^EMAIL 22:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the talk page before voting or commenting. —WAvegetarian^TALK_CONTRIBS^EMAIL 22:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. Sheep are already classified as mammals. Is this a joke? Monkeyman 22:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't nonsense. It actually happened. And yes, it was a joke at the time. —WAvegetarian^TALK_CONTRIBS^EMAIL 22:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. You put it on AfD and then argue in favor of it? Is this part of the "absurd acts [...] and Performance Art" mentioned in the article? :/ I maintain my vote as originally submitted.

Monkeyman 23:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you to change your vote, just your reasoning. I'm not arguing in favor of it; don't twist my words. I'm merely saying that it is not nonsense. It actually happened. It is, however, a non-notable stunt. As this isn't a straw poll and Wikipedia:Voting is evil, the reasoning matters more than the bolded summary. Please refer to the talk page for further explanation of its credibility. I think it should be deleted, but care about the reasoning. You might find my changing speedy tags to the appropriate reasoning pointless as well, but it is important that things be done right. —WAvegetarian^TALK_CONTRIBS^EMAIL 01:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm willing to accept that it's true, but that doesn't mean it's notable. --Aaron 23:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm too old to believe in SAMTA. Guy 23:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Google gives "about 6" results. Hbackman 01:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused about the use of the Google test, especially in cases of a group such as this whose activities slightly predate widespread internet use. Is that a good measure? On the subject of whether SHAMTA is a joke, or prank. Yes, I believe the group was manipulating the local media, but I haven't read anything in print to that effect. What is the Wikipedia policy on that? Can I put a Category Prankster tag without documentation? I certainly think there are commonalities with Rhinoceros Party of Canada, The Yes Men, Joey Skaggs and the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax. I will go to the Library tomorrow. Leviathanbus 05:29, 21 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 00:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encore Cinemas[edit]

Originally prodded for non-notability, tag removed by page author. Ostensibly an article about a non-notable movie theater chain in Canada (2 locations), is actually about how the owner felt movies were too expensive so went on to open his own etc etc MNewnham 22:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can find no historical significance on this theater chain. Monkeyman 22:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, non-notable, thinly disguised spam — Graibeard^(talk) 23:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can explain why this meets WP:CORP. Tonywalton | Talk 13:13, 21 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 00:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fauzan[edit]

Dicdef; I searched google and can't find any more info about the term other than some people use it as a first name. According to Transwiki, these need to be listed on AfD before they can be transferred to Wiktionary. --M @r ē ino 22:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DicDef. Monkeyman 22:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rubberstamp as DicDef — Graibeard^(talk) 23:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like dicdef to me --Xorkl000 09:58, 23 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, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West nicolson street[edit]

Non notable, point of view, unverified. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. Monkeyman 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. — Graibeard^(talk) 23:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I usually don;t vote delete on road articles, but this one? Terrible spelling, the article capitalization is wrong, probably nn, POV. Need I say more? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I used to live just right by this street - it's only a couple of hundred yards long or so - it has a couple of pubs and cafes on it but that's not enough for notability. Qwghlm 15:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If every street like that had an article, there'd be a gazillion for my hometown (Vancouver). Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 04:29, 22 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 (no consensus). Article may perhaps be merged, but I won't do so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Rutilius Lupus[edit]

Non notable, only returns 105 hits on Google. The information is better suited for an Egypt related article. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd say merge to Kitos War except that it's all there already. Dlyons493 Talk 23:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being the military governor/ruler of a land mass comparable to Texas is quite notable I think. You didn't really expect to find too many google hits for an ancient historical figure did you??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a respectable though short {{Ancient-Rome-bio-stub}} to me. Tonywalton | Talk 13:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't consider myself a deletionist. In fact I like to give all good stubs a chance to become great articles, however in the stub of this article it says "not much else is known about him", leading me to believe that this article will never be more than a stub. If that is the case then those couple sentences can easily go someplace else. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Changing my vote to Merge to here. Tonywalton | Talk 15:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems not to be expandable. Redirect either to Kitos War (which has all the info) or to History_of_Greek_and_Roman_Egypt#Roman_rule_in_Egypt, where an editor should decide whether any of this stub's content is important enough to be merged in. Barno 20:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ancient personages and sites may not register as many google hits as the latest members of some boyband, but that hardle means they are nn. We let in any state legislator or minor descendent of Queen Victoria; certainly Marcus Rutilius Lupus should be kept. And what is wrong with a short article anyway? Carlossuarez46 21:18, 22 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 Xaosflux per CSD:A7 (article about a band with no notability asserted) Stifle 11:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fireballs[edit]

Delete. Was placed on db, but the page's author removed the db tag w/o improving the article--M @r ē ino 22:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per db-bio. Jaxal1 22:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Monkeyman 23:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fireball. --Allen 02:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD:A7. No verifiable notability asserted. Possible hoax. Stifle 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDILY DELETED non-notable band susbtub. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:48, 22 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 01:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bev Duario[edit]

Vanity, advertisement, nn. Delete Ardenn 23:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Vane, unnotable, advertisement, poorly contributed. Google gives out 37 hits. —nlitement ^[talk] 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BALLS. Stifle 22:13, 21 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 with Torrie Wilson. D e ath phoenix 17:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Wilson[edit]

Dogs do not wrestle. WillC 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Torrie Wilson. Not notable without her. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 08:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Torrie Wilson, where the pooch is already mentioned. Body-slam the Chloe page. :) — RJH 19:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Torrie Wilson. Stifle 22:13, 21 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. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French military victories (practical joke)[edit]

Unnotable, intresically boderline to French bashing in the first degree, of very mediocre interest at best, and no concievable expension. Rama 09:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable Internet meme in its day. Could use a rewrite though. --Aaron 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Enough interest attracted to be notable. Disliking the subject matter is not grounds for deletion (nominator expresses pro-UN POV on user home page). Andjam 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable internet phenomenon and evidence of Googlebombing.Capitalistroadster 01:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ephemeral joke, bad categorisation, generally useless - doesn't even link googlebombing. Pavel Vozenilek 19:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google's "I'm Feeling Lucky" button won't trigger this joke forever. Not widely noted now, not widely used as shorthand for an argument, fails WP:Importance, ephemeral and soon forgotten. Creating this article showed POV (albeit tongue-in-cheek); nominating it for deletion based on notability and expandability isn't a POV action, and a userpage pro-UN stance doesn't seem relevant. Not BJAODN material, since it's not even humor added to WP, just to a tiny bit of Google's terabytes. Barno 20:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely reported at the time, I wish the article had some more on the reportage. Carlossuarez46 21:22, 22 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 01:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maitreya (Of the Mission of Maitreya)[edit]

Seems to be an advertisement for a non-notable new religious movement. I can't find the book refered to in the article on amazon, suggesting it is self published. There is no evidence that he has notably many followers. Zeimusu | Talk page 08:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Ze miguel 09:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been cleared up now to hopefully meet the standards of Wikipedia. It is not to be found on amazon and it is indeed self published. At this time there aren't many followers. However, the Book reveals many new understandings that, in our opinion of course, the world should at least know about. We do wish to make the Mission known to the world but we also want to conform to the acceptable standards and keep the article as neutral as possible. BTW this Maitreya is actually present in the world and gives lectures and speeches in paltalk most Saturdays answering questions and giving views on various topics. People can reach him through email and ask questions. Brahmamurti 00:33 13 February 2006 (GMT+1)

Delete all self-published works. Wikipedia is for things that are already notable. —Cryptic (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Aaron 23:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cult advertisement.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:45, 21 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. Punkmorten 11:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minto Developments Inc.[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was presumably the same as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richcraft Homes, at which this initially pointed. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a great article, but Minto is one Canada's largest property developers. - SimonP 23:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Expand. Minto is very well known as a key construction and real estate development in Canada and is the property developing agency for the National Capital Commission. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.[43] -- Krash (Talk) 17:04, 21 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. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica François[edit]

I'm fairly confident that this "highly regarded model" does not exist, or is not, in fact, a highly regarded model. Google throws up no trace of her bar this page and one that links to it. This article is several months old, I'm guessing if she is the real deal this she would have got some coverage somewhere by now? TheGrappler 06:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable crap. Batman2005 23:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wannabe porno.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 17:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication in article or searches of any qualifying accomplishments or (un)coverage. Barno 20:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 22:12, 21 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 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overwatch Protection Solutions International, LLC[edit]

Spam, website vanity 3H 05:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Stifle 22:12, 21 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 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panuganti[edit]

Non-notable, unencyclopedic, and nothing in Wikipedia links to it. EdGl 06:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Delete as above --SammyTerry 23:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles on a name, genealogy, etc. belong on Wikitree. Stifle 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 07:56, 22 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 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pianist amateurs[edit]

Delete, unencylcopedic. EdGl 01:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unredeemable original research. -- Krash (Talk) 16:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unencyclopaedic dicdef. Stifle 22:11, 21 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, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priestressmon[edit]

Delete This article should be deleted because it has been proven several times that this digimon doesn't exist. There should not be an article on something non-existent. "Priestressmon" has been proven to be just a Sakuyamon in an alternate costume. Mushrambo 17:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator not to mention that it has two hits on google with both hits relating to Wikipedia. Timon 04:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deltete this Article ! This Digimon is really just Sakuyamon ! I´ve proven it several times ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.137.202.64 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 21 February 2006.
Delete as nonsense. -- Krash (Talk) 16:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. Stifle 22:10, 21 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 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio 1 Conker Championships[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was not provided, though the article's history isn't promising. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as minor competition held for some radio DJs. Stifle 21:58, 21 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 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ran Andrews[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was based on Wetman's comment on the talk page. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not assserted.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 16:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Possible speedy. Stifle 21:58, 21 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 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RoyalFilm Productions[edit]

Non-notable company or demo group. Neither company nor its successful films found on google. Was prod'd, tag removed sans comment. Weregerbil 04:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 16:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 21:58, 21 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 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sachie[edit]

Delete bull#$%^, no need for Wikipedia contain San Saba 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Shit, sorry about this. I think I caught this on new page patrol. The original author told me about manuscripts they'd seen at their university, or something like that, and that they would get the citations that week. I was waiting for them to do so, such that I could properly refute it/add it to other claims of flight before the Wright Brothers. It just got lost on my huge watch list. Sorry everyone. Let's get this thing gone. —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}•18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some verifiability appears NickelShoe 20:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 07:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't use AfD discussions to push your agenda. -- Krash (Talk) 16:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Potential hoax. -- Krash (Talk) 16:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 21:54, 21 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. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:23] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Sardonicism[edit]

This has been transwikied to Wiktionary and is no longer necessary. Sum0 23:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete DicDef - after successful transwiki, (couldn't find an entry on Sardonicism) — Graibeard^(talk) 00:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's at wikt:transwiki:Sardonic; the article currently at Sardonicism was moved from Sardonic. Not relevant in any case; the transwikied version has rightfully been gathering dust, as Wiktionary had had a better dictdef at wikt:sardonic for nearly six months before it was copied over. —Cryptic (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. Stifle 21:54, 21 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. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sextology[edit]

Dictionary definition of neologism; article itself notes that searches do not find subject. Only encyclopedic content is that there are really six books in The Lord of the Rings, which is almost certainly elsewhere.Septentrionalis 05:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not transwiki Nominator vote. Septentrionalis 05:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't transwiki. A quick google and dict. search returns nothing related to this meaning. — Graibeard^(talk) 00:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable neologism. -- Krash (Talk) 16:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 21:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Ibaranoff24 01:55, 24 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 01:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statue Records[edit]

Statue Records is basically a scam, a bogus label, and should probably be removed from this encyclopedia. I myself have had a bad expirence with them as have many others:
BBB Company Report
Rip-Off Report
CDBaby.org
Indie-Music.com
Much more information can be found simply by doing a google search. Subjectruin 09:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self promotion; does not meet WP:CORP for inclusion of company. Some article wording is directly from the company's website. Claims are unverified; and based on Subjectruin's links, especially BBB link, this company's claims are very questionable. Zero Gnews hits; does not meet WP:CORP. —ERcheck @ 00:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that companies, in general, should be deleted simply because they are scams. If, in fact, this company is ripping off artists it would be very valuable to document that. But that said it doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP, so I'm on the fence. If someone would take the time to research the the company and cite verifiable sources in the article for what the company does and the allegations above, that would probably push me to vote keep. --Craig Stuntz 13:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Stifle 21:53, 21 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. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suckball[edit]

"a million useless opinions on everything" pretty much says it. vanity page, delete. Just plain Bill 16:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody got something to show how these guys and their site are notable or encyclopedic? Somebody? Anything? Just plain Bill 17:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe they've been linked to by CollegeHumor. That's enough for me to give them a keep.--Josh 07:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of compliance with WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 01:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rubbish.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-noatable blog. Made up in school one day and taken way too far subsequently. -- Krash (Talk) 15:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:NFT. Being linked to by a mindless-link-propagation website, especially a humor site, is not enough to get my "keep" vote. Otherwise there would be a few dozen websites every day, thousands per year, which have no lasting significance and no societal influence but would nonetheless get WP articles in violation of our more important policies. Barno 20:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This site is most popular with English-speaking Asians. Don't let American bias lead you to delete this entry. (unsigned comment 03:55, 22 February 2006 from 24.176.41.235)

Never mind the "whatever-centric" argument; please show how the site is notable. Feel free to date and sign your comments with four tildes: (~~~~) Just plain Bill 07:42, 22 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 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summerpetz[edit]

I fail to see the relevance of this article. To me, it is unencyclopedic.

However, it may be able to be salvaged. I leave it up to those who know more than I.

Trjumpet 00:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable , as even the article indicates. — Graibeard^(talk) 00:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 15:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obsolete. Stifle 21:31, 21 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. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TeleNav[edit]

-remove this is adware Mion 13:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while there is no external link, I'd class it as spam — Graibeard^(talk) 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. -- Krash (Talk) 15:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Stifle 21:31, 21 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 01:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jitty[edit]

fails WP:WEB notability —WAvegetarian^TALK_CONTRIBS^EMAIL 19:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and non-notable and unimportant. -- Krash (Talk) 15:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Admittedly not as bad as most of the other website adverts, in that it doesn't have an external link. Stifle 21:30, 21 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 due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 01:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thapar Institute of Engineering and Tech[edit]

Found page through "random article", page admits it is a duplicate and possibly should be deleted. Correct page is at Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology. No articles link to this particular article, and no useful information is in this article. Ataricodfish 23:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the correct page. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, you're right, forgot about the redirect function. I went ahead and redirected to the correct page. Thanks for checking this out, withdrawing nomination. --Ataricodfish 23:55, 20 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. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Clown Bad Dub 7[edit]

Delete Page hasn't been edited for quite some time, makes no mention of why the album is notable. --Impaciente 23:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unremarkable. Also Wikipedia is not a forum to sell your demo cds. -- Krash (Talk) 15:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 21:30, 21 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 an article about a band with no assertion of notability. —Cleared as filed. 23:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Aaron & The Crew[edit]

Self promo, search engines show no evidence of this band even existing. Deathrocker 23:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nn band. No Guru 00:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{db-band}}. -- Krash (Talk) 15:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Stifle 21:29, 21 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. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A week long day[edit]

non-notable musician, says in the text that first cd is being recorded, wikipedia is not a crystal ball, reads like a poor attempt at vanity. Batman2005 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a non-notable band (CSD A7). –Sommers ^(Talk) 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete – far short of WP:MUSIC, as they haven't recorded their first album yet. ×Meegs 02:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{db-band}}. -- Krash (Talk) 15:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unverifiable. Stifle 21:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per all of the above Knowitall 19:02, 22 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.