Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 4 February 6 >

Purge server cache

February 5[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. JIP | Talk 10:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Benson[edit]

Not notable Bobby1011 19:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google Books shows a lot of hits for this name, but none are relevant. So Google regular search needs narrowing to avoid false positives. Google "J.R. Benson"+wrestling gives lots of verifying hits even after ignoring the recent high-school wrestler. Appears to be not a hoax nor vanity. Despite lack of mainstream coverage, feature level of niche coverage indicates strong notability within his field. I wouldn't want him in my town, but I'll vote weak keep. Barno 20:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable enough in his field. Turnstep 20:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom Lyo 04:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bizarre, but notable nonetheless.--み使い Mitsukai 17:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn, keep. Punkmorten 08:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nordfjordeid[edit]

Not worthy of its own article. Any information about Nordfjordeid, if it truly is significant, may and should be placed in the main article for Eid, Norway, as the information there is similarly sparse; I would rather expand the latter page into something more than keep two stubby ones. Nothing to merge from here, though. I move to delete. --Kinu 00:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked it a little. It's potentially keepable now, although a mege merge is still a possible option. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, depending on how much content we get. Night Gyr 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep geo-stub, if its deletable, then so is half of Wikipedia. Also I added some material to that which Grutness so kindly offered. Ruby 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real place in Norway with real communities of interest. Additional to the information added by Grutness and Ruby, mathemetician Sophus Lie was born there in 1842. [1]. Capitalistroadster 02:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real, unique community. Grandmasterka 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ruby. --Aaron 02:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a real place in Norway. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn (in other words, keep) per the additions made herein. Looks a lot better, and definitely distinguishes itself from the Eid, Norway article. Thanks, all! --Kinu 06:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is a real place. Carioca 07:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is verifiable and a geographic location. Dakota ~ ε 08:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - brenneman{T}{L} 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Techlogica[edit]

Fails WP:SOFTWARE and WP:CORP: Nn download stats, no media coverage. I tried three times to ask the article creator/company founder to assert its {{notability}} and he concludes I'm a competitor. I hereby ask the community to decide.-- Perfecto 00:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable and reeks of advertising. Given that the main editor of this page is Techlogica... vanity much? --Kinu 00:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 00:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant advertising, not WP:CORP Camillus (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear case of advertising. Mikkerpikker ... 01:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per aboveWhere (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Aaron 02:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this hideous SpamVert ++Deiz 12:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Prodego talk 14:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity and advertising - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 21:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It reads like an ad+vanity.--Shella 00:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ads.Blnguyen 05:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination, fails all tests, advertisement. --Wingsandsword 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad, vanity, non-notable and dishonest (deleted the page's AFD tag). KarlBunker 16:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam Tawker 00:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shella, TestPilot 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You people use the words "spam", "dishonest" and "hideous" to describe the company page for Techlogica? Its almost as if you don't even know the meaning of these words. Spam? No, spam comes in your email, our page isnt being forced on anyone. Dishonest? No, I reverted my page after what in my opinion was vandalism. Attempting to delete an article for no reason, now that I would consider dishonest. Very strange how you (Perfecto in particular) seem to be on some kind of crusade to get our page deleted for no reason other than the fact that you don't like it. Our page isn't any different than the other company pages listed here. It was simply a resource for someone interested in our company to see some general information. This whole thing has been very silly, asinine in fact, and very juvenile. I'll never understand how people get off on making things hard for other people.

  • Strong delete, especially in light of the above statement. Juvenile actions like this won't save your page, regardless of whether the nominator has a bias or not. Your company is simply not notable under the guidelines set in WP:CORP, and if you don't care for that, then get yourself an account and work to change the guidelines there. Coming here and expecting what is essentially free advertising is both disingenious and contrary to good company ethics and thus shows a company clearly needing a gimmick to survive...just like so many other fly-by-night companies that have come trying to get "free Wiki ads".--み使い Mitsukai 01:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many free web-hosting places out there that would be glad to be a resource for someone interested in our company to see some general information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; however, and is not the place for such things. Peyna 03:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, already blanked by creator. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Curtain Lady[edit]

nn ghost. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Please note that this entry is based entirely on interviews of the persons involved. I wrote a report on this for my local history report in school three years ago. The story may seem silly and unserious to some people, but for the local area that this occured in, this caused a massive frustration among parents and children alike." Delete as original research. --Malthusian (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable original research. As far as the legend: Wikipedia is not Snopes. --Kinu 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Royboycrashfan 00:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, non-notable. --Lockley 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Work that explicitly calls itself a violation of wikipedia rules ought to be speediable. The creator has blanked the page, so I tagged it as speedy. Night Gyr 00:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN & original research. Mikkerpikker ... 01:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - brenneman{T}{L} 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Real World (Detroit)[edit]

There is no sign that BMP will actually film in Detroit. This article is pure speculation. Sensation002 00:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, obvious speculation. Royboycrashfan 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the moment, this is just speculation. (I believe Amy Poehler on SNL joked that this may be shot in Detroit, along with several cast members.) All sources I can find, including Detroit papers, simply call it a rumor, as does the article in question itself. If this does come to fruition, the article can always be recreated with substantiated information, which is sorely lacking here anyway. --Kinu 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation and restoration of article history if it proves to be real. youngamerican (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mikkerpikker ... 01:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is pure crystalballery. Grandmasterka 02:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 07:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Prodego talk 14:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speculation. Restore if it turns out to be true - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 21:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speculaiton.Blnguyen 05:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 08:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculation --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 23:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio.blog.Club[edit]

Blatant spam. Reyk 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - brenneman{T}{L} 23:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoee[edit]

Delete- Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a translation site. Rory096 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Timothy Treadwell. --Celestianpower háblame 08:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly people[edit]

Article does not assert its importance. Delete —Brim 00:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. We still need the old content to be merged into Treadwell's article. Rory096 18:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was no old content, just one misspelled sentence. Night Gyr 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Journal of Oregon Ornithology. JIP | Talk 10:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joo[edit]

Delete. Resuming AfD per my comments below. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and nothing links to this page. --Aaron 08:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and nothing links to this page. Hbackman 00:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not worth a TransWiki. --Kinu 00:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Move to Journal of Oregon Ornithology and redirect per below to keep the new, legitimate information. --Kinu 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been completely rewritten, and the new subject seems legit. It still should be moved to Journal of Oregon Ornithology. Royboycrashfan 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fixed it, let's keep it Ruby 01:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move. I agree with Royboycrashfan. The new article is worth keeping, but JOO should redirect to Journal of Oregon Ornithology. Changed my mind in light of Aaron's comment. Hbackman 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldy Moved, Speedy Keep The original deletion criteria no longer apply, and the nominator seems to have withdrawn their nomination. Night Gyr 01:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even the new article appears to be nn. The last issue of JOO was published 10 years ago, and the publication has only 138 unique Google hits. --Aaron 08:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think this was handled correctly, as the original Joo article, which had nothing to do with the Journal of Oregon Ornithology, was completely destroyed in the page move. I'll leave Journal of Oregon Ornithology as-is for now (though I still think it's nn), but I'm reverting Joo and resuming the AfD on that version. --Aaron 08:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I will ask for the page to be protected pending the outcome of this discussion if it's reverted again. Besides, according to WP:MOS, Joo shouldn't redirect to an article with the initials J.O.O. anyway. That's what JOO is for (which already exists and redirects to Journal of Oregon Ornithology). --Aaron 17:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete if Joo does not continue to redirect to Journal of Oregon Ornithology. Ruby 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because of current redirect - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in any guise, since as Aaron notes JOO is the correct article to redirect to Journal of Oregon Ornithology, not Joo, and the original content was dictionary. -- Mithent 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect. It can't hurt, and it might help a very small number of searchers.--ragesoss 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leet. Adrian Lamo ·· 23:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect as it is. It looks harmless. Take this to redirects for deletion if necessary. Peyna 04:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 00:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G D Goenka Public School[edit]

Tagged as PROD but referred here. I believe schools to be worthy of inclusion regardless of geographic location and vote to Keep. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but rewrite. Royboycrashfan 00:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, established school, and helps to counteract systemic bias. Kappa 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I'd like to read about indian schools, but this article has no content except POV asskissing. " fountainhead of knowledge, education and sport." " It offers all the eminities and facilities that a modern school could possibly only imagine." Misspelled asskissing at that. Night Gyr 00:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Phil, you are under no obligation to send it here when you remove the PROD tag. Indeed it is a little pointless, since the outcome of this debate is inevitably keep (either outright or no-consensus). --Doc ask? 00:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't been to AfD in awhile so I didn't know. I knew that schools were generally keeps, but I didn't know that non-US schools were. Someone should feel free to speedy keep in awhile if that's the case. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe being in the US or not is very relevant. This is the English language wikipedia, and English is an important language in India. --kingboyk 01:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per User:Night Gyr --kingboyk 01:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa. Dlyons493 Talk 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phil Lyo 05:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was the original prodder, not knowing that there appears to be a general "keep" consensus for schools. It still seems to me that a completely generic school (in whatever county), with nothing to distinguish it from hundreds like it, is no more notable and inclusion-worthy than a generic road, tree, house, etc. As to systemic bias, I wasn't aware that this ought to be a notability consideration - or do we now have an "affirmative action" policy for non-Western content? -- Sandstein 07:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be an English language fee-paying school (a Public School in the sense used in England rather than America, I feel), and therefore does have some note and separation beyond that of the immediate geographical location. As such, and given that the article states the school advertises in in-flight magazines, it would appear to be more notable than the average school, and therefore may well warrant an article in its own right, so weak keep. If not, I would suggest that the Vasant Kunj article is expanded to detail the schools in the suburb further. Average Earthman 15:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The annual school fees are close to ten times the average annual income in India. Whether one is for or against this, I feel it's a degree of notability. Dlyons493 Talk 17:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nominator (don't get to use that phrase very often!) and Dlyons493's observation regarding fees. Turnstep 20:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not establish notability and, regardless of their location, schools are not inherently notable. Cedars 01:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs big cleanup & rewrite, but not deletion. --Wingsandsword 08:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable, and apparently more so than most of the American high schools with articles. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-06 22:13Z
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and therefore not related to "systemic bias." If, in all likelihood, kept, do not expand with transient and non-notable information for the sake of expansion. -— Rebelguys2 talk 02:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep and please help stop the bias Yuckfoo 19:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. Siva1979 09:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Online/Changelog[edit]

Delete We don't do subpages in the main namespace, and a changelog for a game is not ensyclopedia material in any case. --Sherool (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete now that's what I call consensus. W.marsh 00:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutehype[edit]

Non-notable website. No Alexa rating. One google hit and it appears to have been created by the owner itself. Delete Dr Debug (Talk) 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast magazine[edit]

Online magazine which started Feb 1st. 4 google hits. No Alexa rating. Delete Dr Debug (Talk) 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete such an embryo, they can't afford advertising, so thought they'd get a free lunch on WP. Delete forthwith! Camillus (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and Vanity EdGl 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, WP:VSCA. --Kinu 01:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. —ERcheck @ 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 02:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as should be anything that uses the first person plural. Daniel Case 03:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Prodego talk 14:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of the team who put the Podcast User together. We are not aware of who put the entry on WP. Please delete. We have no interest in having a WP entry. Paul.Pinfield


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --W.marsh 02:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hohak Band[edit]

Does not meet notability criteria for bands Amcfreely 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, but a move/redirect is in order. W.marsh 02:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davlatmand Kholor[edit]

Non-notable musician Amcfreely 01:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S23 Wiki[edit]

Notability of this wiki is not asserted in the article. There are only 182 registered users, and 5930 total pages. The article was nominated for deletion in December, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S23 Wiki. The result of that discussion was "no consensus", because of 3 late "keep" votes from the Wiki's members. dbenbenn | talk 01:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE
If you came to this page from http://s23.org/ or some similar site outside of Wikipedia wishing to affect the deletion decision process, please be aware that the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry allows for all comments made by new or anonymous contributors to be ignored. Please remember this is not a simple vote, but rather a discussion. If you wish the article kept, you should make logical arguments as to why the article should stay.
  • Delete. Non-notable as per nom. Also seems to fail WP:WEB; Google "s23 wiki" for dearth of results that are not self-referential. --Kinu 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 01:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable wiki. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 03:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After seeing the end-loading of the votes by apparent members of this group on the previous AfD nomination, there seems to be a fervent desire on their part to see this article stay. If deletion occurs, perhaps it should come with {{deletedpage}} status. --Kinu 04:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly give a short mention on Seti@home. JoshuaZ 05:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Prodego talk 14:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:50 2006-02-05
  • Keep per stopping trollish deletion. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, it is a much more active site than infoAnarchy. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 00:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please. As you will see from our Current events page that we really care about this wiki and really love being metioned on Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding. -Kunda23 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Love being metioned? Sounds like the purpose of the page is vanity... which is a criterion for deletion. --Kinu 02:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you have to delete anyways, do it, but in general, why is deleting so important? Does that little diskspace matter? Staying would give us a chance to have more users, but we cant stay if we dont have enough of them.. hmm oh well, cant help it then Mutante23 01:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I have often wondered why people consider deleting articles such as this to be such an important job. Deleting it won't reduce the bytes on Wikipedia; it would still take up space under Special:Undelete/S23 Wiki. Furthermore, this article makes Wikipedia a better source for information. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Bad ideas 06:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pages aren't deleted to save space. They're deleted because not everything is worthy of being in an encyclopedia. See WP:NOT. In particular, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia--it is true that there is no limit on the amount of information wikipedia can contain. However, wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information--the information on wikipedia must be encyclopedic and notable. See WP:WEB for notability criteria of a website. Bad ideas 06:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 09:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 12:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, non-notable website, as defined in WP:WEB. Agnte 13:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MattisManzel 14:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC): keep[reply]
  • Keep I think it's notable, so keep it. Took77 15:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The previous user was recently created has no significant contibutions beyond this vote. Not actually calling sock puppetry on this user in particular, but adding the warning preemptively, since there is precedent from the previous AfD as well. --Kinu 17:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a real human being. My german wikipedia-account doesn't seems to work with this english wiki, thats why I had to create a new one. Took77 18:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not understand why people are saying this is not notable. It seems to be a notable website. If it cannot be kept, then I say redirect to Seti@home because it makes no sense to needlessly delete it. — Galaeron Nihmedu 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JarlaxleArtemis Lyo 04:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Kinu. --MayerG 05:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JarlaxleArtemis. --User:Yaotl
  • Delete per nom. Lots of keep votes from newly created accounts. --Pierremenard 08:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Acctualy we are only passiv readers of the english wiki. Since my english isn't that great I prefer editing the german wikipedia... That's, again, why I had to create an Account here just to take part on this discussion on the article... Anyway. I guess if pages like Zeldapedia (or lots of other examples) may exists, there is a eligibility to keep S23 Wiki. It's no reason to delete a page just because it has been started by someone like Jarlaxle, who may have started some zany pages, I think. But we can see it as an positive side-effect, that, as I have heard, some guys from the s23-comunity are workin on an improvment of S23 Wiki :) Took77 11:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Pathoschild - CSD G1 --lightdarkness 05:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Richard of Prusia[edit]

Delete - factually incorrect nonsense, no Hohenzollern king named richard Xorkl000 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - some kid (who can't spell) playing around. Camillus (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per hoax and/or patent nonsense. --Kinu 01:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably taken from this web page, the only website mentioning a "King Richard of Prussia". EdGl 01:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense Where (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —ERcheck @ 02:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy G1, very poorly written patent nonsense. Royboycrashfan 02:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Rmhermen 03:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not quite patent nonsense exactly but pretty dumb. Snurks T C 03:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear speedy case, should not get here. Pavel Vozenilek 05:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metameaning[edit]

neologism that claims to be a branch of philosophy, but really just refers to one sparse website. Googling for 'metameaning' largely pulls references to the Wikipedia page or that web site. Sukiari 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Epistemology is the study of the meaning of meaning but it is sloppy to state there is actually a term for the meaning of meaning, which would be a recursive headache Ruby 01:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google yields mostly self-referential (no irony intended) and Wiki references. Hardly accepted, even for a neologism. --Kinu 02:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is basically an advertisement for a non-notable website. The article itself is superfluous, as (a) philosophers do not actually use the term 'metameaning', and (b) the investigation of the nature (or "meaning") of meaning is already covered in philosophy of language, semantics, and related articles. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert. TheRingess 06:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Prodego talk 14:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:50 2006-02-05
  • Delete per Dbtfz Bad ideas 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. --Wingsandsword 08:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flyingcart[edit]

Appears to be a random web service. WP:WEB Stifle 02:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 02:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamariki[edit]

Wikipedia is not a (language) dictionary. Maybe merge this into Maori or Maori language? Hbackman 02:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep changed to an article about a notable school Ruby 02:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Ruby's changes. (Thank you!) --Kinu 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Ruby. Royboycrashfan 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure how notable it is, but I'm willing to go along with consensus. Isn't there a schools Wikiproject? They might be interested in this. Hbackman 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep now that Ruby has expanded it. The original nomination for deletion was fair enough, but this is a completely different article.-gadfium 04:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ruby Prodego talk 14:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now a worthwhile article. — TheKMantalk 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination is now not applicable. -- Mithent 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expansion makes it now worthwhile, but does it need renaming to Tamariki School or even Tamariki (school)? Any thoughts?Hairybottle 12:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be moved if it's ever necessary, but it's doing just fine where it is for now. — TheKMantalk 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Siva1979Talk to me 09:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nashawn[edit]

This rapper asserts some notability, but I couldn't find much on google and as it is it fails WP:MUSIC. Delete unless someone can provide more evidence of notability. Grandmasterka 02:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's not much more evidence to provide, Grandmasterka. Royboycrashfan 02:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy and his lyrics are all over google but it would be nice if someone found the highest chart position of his work Ruby 02:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Allmusic.com doesn't know him which suggests he hasn't charted as it has entries on all charting musicians. Has appeared on Nas albums as they are apparently cousins but doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrant his own article. Capitalistroadster 03:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreate. The crystal ball can't say whether this artist will be notable, either by himself or as part of Nas's outfit, but I would support recreating the article with new substantiated information if it is warranted in the future. --Kinu 03:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Endomion, 25k + hits on google. Need to be expanded a bit with how he charted Senner 03:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you look at the results, most of them are obiously irrelevant. Many of them refer to Nashawn Kearse. Grandmasterka 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Kinu. If he happens to have success in the future (which seems unlikely to me), then recreate the article. Otherwise, he's not notable enough. -Chairman S. 04:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, not even close to WP:MUSIC ++Deiz 12:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Prodego talk 14:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 16:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 18:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:50 2006-02-05
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Wingsandsword 08:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Pierremenard 08:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Siva1979Talk to me 09:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Forty-nine character virtues[edit]

List of vague adjectives with no connecting ideas or explanations. Nothing noteworthy to keep and the ideas are directly copied from the author's personal webpage[3] save biblical references. This article should be deleted and the link to the "Forty-nine character virtues" should be placed Bill Gothard's wikipedia page for interested parties. Arbustoo 06:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator --lightdarkness 05:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ga Ba Majay Ba Ma Pyay[edit]

Non-notable non-English phrase. Delete. Grandmasterka 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC) I withdraw the nomination based on it being the national anthem of Burma.[reply]

  • Delete, it's poorly written. In addition, Google displays 32 results, most of which are encyclopedia entries. Royboycrashfan 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insignificant phrase EdGl 03:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I fixed it, please consider again Ruby 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Ruby's cleanup and nominator's withdrawal. --Kinu 03:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is already present on WP as Gba_Majay_Bma which one person says "However, the title "Gba Majay Bma" is strange in Burmese ears. It should be "Gba Majay Bma Pyay" or just "Gba Majay"." That article also has the lyrics. Ruby 03:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely support a series of redirects/merges to bring all the information to one place with the proper spelling of the title. --Kinu 04:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Thug life Code[edit]

This is a direct copy (not even any formatting) from other sites, including http://www.thuglifearmy.com/news/?id=8 Nothing else is in the article. It has been this way since it was created. No one has/will step up to clean it up since it has been in cleanup status since November. The Deviant 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:12, Feb. 11, 2006

School Choice Party (New York)[edit]

Last active in 2004, according to their website; never successfully elected anyone (yet). When they have a base of 100 elected officals, an article would be appropriate. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. If your homepage is on GeoCities, I don't think you deserve a Wikipedia article, not even for the free advertising without bandwidth limitations. --Kinu 03:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A party that endorses more than one candidate is notable enough for mine at any stage. I doubt that any Communist Party in the US, UK, Australia or Canada has ever come within a bull's roar of having 100 elected officials yet we don't delete those and rightly so. Capitalistroadster 03:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They are only a single-state party, in a state that has plenty of other parties that we have articles on (Conservative Party of New York, Working Families Party, New York State Right to Life Party for example). Let them get 50,000 votes in this year's gubernatorial election (which gives them an automatic ballot line for the next four years) and then they're notable. Daniel Case 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Ardenn 07:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Prodego talk 14:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete A search of 1700+ newspapers via Newsbank for the query "School Choice Party" turns up 3 results. Not enough verifiable info on activities for an article. Lotsofissues 16:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, as it is a verifiable party[4], but no candidates and that 50,000 votes line... (and a geocities website). feydey 17:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough. Eusebeus 18:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unimportant an non-notable political party. — TheKMantalk 19:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination and Lotsofoissues, not notable, apparently inactive, and insignificant. --Wingsandsword 09:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Punkmorten 09:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Turks[edit]

author has requested it be deleted due to the band not currently meeting wikipedia standards. No idea if this in fact the case Geni 03:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like their only album isn't out yet. Delete and/or redirect to Young Turks. —Kirill Lokshin 03:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per author's request. It is indeed a non-notable band. EdGl 03:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per author's request. Royboycrashfan 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per author's request or weak redirect to Young Turks. --Kinu 03:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per author's request. I'm leaving a friendly note on the user's talk page and I hope others will, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC) I had suggested "redirect" but on further reflection I don't think "The Young Turks" with "Young" and "Turks" capitalized is a plausible way for people to look for Young Turks. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Nobody will type "The Young Turks" in the search box when they can just put "Young Turks". EdGl 04:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Young Turks. Plausible search term. Capitalistroadster 03:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per author's request. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly implemented the redirect. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily redirected to whitewash. Consensus seems apparent - being bold. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing[edit]

Delete: Duplicates Whitewash --CTSWyneken 03:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge/Redirectdrboisclair 03:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy move to User:Douglas Gross/Multitasking at author request. -- RHaworth 09:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multitasking - How Multitasking Works[edit]

I'm not sure that this should be simply deleted outright, but at any rate it isn't an encyclopaedic article in its current form - I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. The title of the page, and overall tone, make it clear that this belongs elsewhere.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 03:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issaquah_Davinta[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted: I can't find anything about this supposed Jedi online other than mirrors of the wiki page. Furthermore, have talked to multiple star wars fanatics who have no recall of him at all. I strongly suspect that someone made this character up and put him on Wikipedia. In any case, highly non-notable. JoshuaZ 05:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It even says "a fake character". WP:NFT.Royboycrashfan 03:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatantly fake. Deletion should also include removal of reference at Jedi. --Kinu 03:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Issaquah is actually an exurb of Seattle, I doubt its a real character Ruby 03:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hilarious read; put in BJAODN. EdGl 04:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Royboycrashfan. Ardenn 07:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Prodego talk 14:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the above. Somebody's own personal fanfic or player character (or whatever this is, it's certainly not anything official or canonical) really doesn't belong here. --Wingsandsword 09:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --BorgQueen 23:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Family Promotions[edit]

Delete - smells of WP:VSCA and poorly written too --Xorkl000 03:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bar Radio[edit]

This came up in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamers daily, and in the interests of fairness I have listed this too. A weekly 2 hour radio show with no indication of notability. Alexa ranking over 300,000. Janitorial action so no vote from me just yet. kingboyk 03:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Nobody come's up with an assertion of notability, I say delete too. --kingboyk 21:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable, except maybe for local or cruft interest; reeks of WP:VSCA. --Kinu 03:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 04:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable. Royboycrashfan 09:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable Prodego talk 14:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- internet radiocruft. Haikupoet 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as radiocruft.Blnguyen 05:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, just another podcast Bad ideas 05:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. --Wingsandsword 09:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, you asshole Dipdipdipdipdip. --Andy Saunders 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NoKiN* Are you kidding me... its notable to the chicago reader...and RBR's estimated 50,000+ listeners.

SCHMEEELE SCHMEEELE2 blopblopblopblop

IT'S PISS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.44.223 (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete --File Éireann 22:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Chump[edit]

Neologism, possible hoax. None of the Google results have anything to do with the topic. King of Hearts | (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While being a "chump" is a common expression, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Urban or otherwise. The definition and etymology provided are suspect at best ("chumpishness" doesn't seem like a cromulent word). Not worth a Transwiki. --Kinu 04:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. EdGl 04:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's hardly a neologism (see A Chump At Oxford, the 1940 Laurel & Hardy film). However it does seem to be a dictdef so delete per Kinu. --kingboyk 06:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While it is indeed an actual word, the information give is quite inaccurate. It could easily be rewritten. Royboycrashfan 09:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is neither a neologism or a hoax being familiar to speakers of British English - although this is not made clear. However, I am not at all sure about the given definition. If it belongs anywhere, it is in wikidicitonry. 13:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary Prodego talk 14:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only because its just a definition. If it was expanded to encyclopedia-type content, I'll change to keep. This is why Wictionary was invented - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 21:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Davila Gavilanes[edit]

All of three Google hits, two of which are from the same site. Doesn't seem notable. Daniel Case 04:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I tried some variations of the name, to see if the article title is simply a misspelling, but found nothing to verify the contents. Non-notable by my standards. --Kinu 05:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Royboycrashfan 09:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Prodego talk 14:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 21:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hach[edit]

Originally tagged for speedy, but contested by the article creator with a mild assertion of notability. This, however, appears unclear, with no references and 0 relevant hits on Google. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 04:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable despite author's claims. EdGl 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The string search you propose gives 4 relevant hits, including the one you provide. Better than none, but imho, not enough to establish notability enough to warrant an article. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 04:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see how running a bus company gives notability. --kingboyk 04:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well when its a Fortune 500 company, and the profitable portion of the company I think it is. You have other CEOS and Presidents on here, what makes running a bus company different than running say an accounting firm, or software firm. He's accomplished a lot more than other folks on here such as pro wrestlers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hachster (talk • contribs) .
  • Ahh, but pro wrestlers are more famous than bus-company CEOs. When this company becomes a Fortune 500 company, then you may write this article. EdGl 05:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is it about pro wrestlers lately that's making them the favored new-editor default standard for inclusion? (see here) Daniel Case 05:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well go ahead and check the 2005 Fortune 500 and you'll see Laidlaw International as #419 on the Fortune 500. So this its not a matter of when since it currently is a Fortune 500 company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hachster (talk • contribs) .
  • Being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and being the CEO of a subsidiary of a Fortune 500 company are two different things. EdGl 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well when you run the profitable division that keeps the company from disintegrating its worth noting —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hachster (talk • contribs) .
  • If the gentleman in question is CEO of a Fortune 500 company that might be a different matter. However, a) the article doesn't make such a claim, b) I'm neither American nor do I have intimate knowledge of who is on the F500 and who isn't it. If the article doesn't tell me how am I to know? Since other editors have stated he's not in that position anyway I guess it doesn't matter. --kingboyk 07:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At the least, the information about The Deer Hunter is unverifiable via Google or IMDb, so I am boldly removing it. --Kinu 05:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Kinu, I'm glad you're able to just use your resources of Google and IMDB to find information. Here's a better question for you. If you're judging the information I'm submitting. I think we need to verify your information of being a graduate of Economics from Yale University's Davenport College. If that's the case, why are you doing technical support for Wikipedia. Shouldn't you have a job doing economic research for a Wall Street firm. I'd be hard pressed to see proof that you actually graduated form Yale with an economics degree
    • Please try to keep this discussion civil and relevant to the matter at hand. I have not personally attacked you by making the aforementioned edit; it was a judgment call based on the fact that the information was not readily verifiable. We are more than open to a source that would verify this information, and if it is indeed true, it would be reinserted in the page and kept (assuming a lack of deletion per this discussion). Again, I am not trying to bite, just explain. And, as a show of good faith as to verifying information, here's my YaleStation profile. --Kinu 08:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are plenty of facts out there to prove the information. I'm sorry that it's all not Google accessible. Not all information is found on google. Plenty of Court documents and Mission statements from him are out there, sorry if they're not on google.

  • Delete, smells of non-notability. Royboycrashfan 10:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the unsigned bitchy comments by the author carry no weight whatsoever except to diminish the quality of his character yet further. Oh, and the subject is 100% nn VanityCruft ++Deiz 12:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The author's comments further up this page notwithstanding, the biography as provided on the page under discussion doesn't assert the notable status of the subject. As such, it violates WP:BIO and should be deleted. The author has such time until the discussion is closed to add verifiable information that raises the status of Mr Hach to notable. If this is done, then I will reconsider my vote.  (aeropagitica)  13:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: per nom. And author needs to learn how to sign his/her comments. Use ~~~~. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And with the outcome of this Afd very clear, I'll bite my toungue on responding to the ridiculous defense. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable Prodego talk 14:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the sentiments voiced by Deiz. Eusebeus 18:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 21:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:15, Feb. 11, 2006

Committee for International Peace (CIP)[edit]

Non-notable campus group Wkdewey 04:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. They are no different than any such club at any university. And their main page is on MySpace... come on. --Kinu 04:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete after vandalism by 68.192.15.169, who is an anonymous editor of this article, to my user page. If you have voted delete on this issue, you should check your user page as well. --Kinu 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Kinu. --Aaron 04:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. EdGl 04:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteunless evidence of notablitiy can be estabished.
Keep. There seems to be some evidence of a level of notability (they are mentioned in an article in the north texus daily) so I think it should be kept for now.--JK the unwise 11:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objects Search[edit]

Put up for deletion once, but there was no discussion [5]. Non-notable. Hbackman 04:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Reeks of advertising. No possible expansion perceived. The redirect page ObjectsSearch should be deleted as well. --Kinu 04:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no improvement for months, dead. Pavel Vozenilek 05:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, neglected, etc. Royboycrashfan 10:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable Prodego talk 14:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable, strange nobody entered previous discussion... - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, advertisement. --Wingsandsword 09:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Beguile[edit]

Delete. Appears to be fan fiction of some sort. Google search only returns answers.com version of article, nothing links to article here. BryanG 04:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fake character. --Kinu 04:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. --Aaron 04:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fake character. EdGl 04:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete JoshuaZ 04:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's false, there are only two "Darths" at a time Ruby 05:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 10:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above Prodego talk 14:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsence - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definite fan fiction. --Canley 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fanfiction & nonsense. Unverifyable and "original research". --Wingsandsword 09:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn Prodego talk 14:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bright green[edit]

Neologism. A Google search on the phrase in an environmental context shows it being used only by the same blogs and individuals who happen to have linked to it from their own Wikipedia pages. Aaron 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination per discussion below. --Aaron 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Niche, non-notable neologism. --Kinu 04:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete A check of the article's history shows that this started out as an article on the colour and has been a redirect to the article green. Whether reverted or redirected, past work should not be obliterated because someone hijacked it to talk about obscure politics. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly reverting to the redirect for green. --Kinu 07:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was aware of the article history. I didn't mention it becaue I didn't want to overly complicate what I expected to be a quick consensus to delete, after which I could restore the original article. But now that it's been mentioned: It was Dbenbenn, an admin, who originally blanked the article and turned it into a redirect to green, with the odd rationale (according to his edit summary) that there was "no content here" (which, as you can see from the diff, is factually incorrect). Nameneko then nominated the redirect for deletion, which I can only presme failed, as Stoph removed the RfD tag a little over two weeks later. It was then the anonymous user User:71.37.1.43 that hijacked the page and turned it into the environmental neologism that I nominated for deletion a few hours ago. We may have to WP:AGF on the anon user's actions, as WP:RFD rather confusingly says, "Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold." I personally don't believe that means you can change it into an article on an entirely different subject, but you have to admit it's pretty damn vague. Anyway, now that I've explained all that: As long as Kinu has already reverted, I'm going to revert back a little further to the last version of the true article stub about the color itself. (This was a legit article from the moment it was created, as there are a large number of articles about colors on WP; see List of colors, which to this day includes a link to the long-since-hijacked Bright green.) --Aaron 07:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no problem with the version you've reverted back to... I'd like to say that when people think "bright green," they think of #66FF00, as its a pretty standard version of it. It's a lot more useful in this form than redirecting to "just plain old" green, and I'd keep it in this form. --Kinu 07:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Consensus was to delete all except Hatch. W.marsh 02:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Quinton[edit]

User:Thepangelinanpost has created a ton of articles on reality TV show contestants, with no other claims to notability apart from being on the show. I dont know what the guidelines say so I'll list this one here as an example. delete BadSeed 04:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles: Kathy Vavrick-O'Brien, Sean Rector, Robert DeCanio, Zoe Zanidakis, Gina Crews, Peter Harkey, Patricia Jackson, Gabriel Cade, Kelly Goldsmith, Carl Bilancione, Frank Garrison, Teresa Cooper, Clarence Black, Silas Gaither, Linda Spencer, Lindsey Richter. This guy (Richard Hatch (reality TV)) won, does it make him more notable? --BadSeed 04:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vote Brandon off the island again Ruby 04:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete en masse, except for Richard Hatch, who's managed to screw up enough to stay in the news off and on for years. --Aaron 04:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Any useful information about these individuals (which is probably none) should only be on the respective Survivor page. --Kinu 04:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree with Aaron re: Richard Hatch. He was essentially one of the "pioneers," if that word is appropriate, in the reality show contestant field, and is about as famous (or infamous, depending on your POV) with his gratuitous nudity and tax problems and whatnot. He is the only one that deserves an article, much like Charles Van Doren or Ken Jennings. All the other AfD candidates mentioned herein are deletable. --Kinu 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all; they all appear to be non-notable reality game-show contestants.  (aeropagitica)  13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable Prodego talk 14:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any reality show contestent who haven't managed to extend their fame/infamy past their duration on the show. Average Earthman 15:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep They were probably created by someone trying to turn all the red links blue on pages like Survivor: Marquesas, see google cache from a few days ago [6]. All 8 of the links which were red there were part of this series. -- Astrokey44|talk 15:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All except FNF (Richard Hatch). The rest are nn enough for individual articles. Eusebeus 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Richard Hatch. MCB 06:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gagnon-Bagheri[edit]

Non-notable. Does not meet criteria at WP:MUSIC. ~MDD4696 04:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Because he has has "solo projects in his mind" but he will never be able to wrap all the "music genders" Ruby 04:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and vanity. EdGl 04:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, and likely vanity. --Kinu 04:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable at this time. --Krich (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ruby --kingboyk 07:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Prodego talk 14:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 09:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all. W.marsh 02:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Vavrick-O'Brien, Gina Crews, Patricia Jackson, Kelly Goldsmith, Teresa Cooper, Zoe Zanidakis, Lindsey Richter[edit]

Voted off Survivor, now vote her off Wikipedia Ruby 04:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reciprocating delete We may have missed some. --BadSeed 04:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Any useful information about these individuals (which is probably none) should only be on the respective Survivor page. --Kinu 04:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This should be on the Survivor page not on an article of its own since they are not very notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete - Merge any information into the Survivor article. Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 06:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu, save for what little, if any, is worth merging per Tvaughn05. --Aaron 06:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable at this time. --Krich (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Prodego talk 14:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.--み使い Mitsukai 01:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all. W.marsh 03:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Rector, Robert DeCanio, Peter Harkey, Gabriel Cade, Carl Bilancione, Frank Garrison, Clarence Black, Silas Gaither[edit]

Voted off Survivor, now vote him off Wikipedia Ruby 04:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per above --BadSeed 04:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Any useful information about these individuals (which is probably none) should only be on the respective Survivor page. --Kinu 04:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu, save for what little, if any, is worth merging per Tvaughn05. --Aaron 06:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable at this time. --Krich (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Prodego talk 14:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.--み使い Mitsukai 01:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 03:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viridian design movement[edit]

Non-notable, appears to fail WP:WEB, has only 186 unique Google hits when you remove the founders' name. Might be worth merging into Bruce Sterling. Aaron 04:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Bruce Sterling. There's a perfectly good section on this topic on his page, and because the two are interconnected, and because I don't see much expansion in the near future, having it in one article would be ideal. --Kinu 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the movement is notable enough to warrant whole issue in two well known magazine [7][8]. --Salix alba (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Salix alba Prodego talk 14:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whatever the final consensus is on this article is fine by me - I only discovered it while digging around trying to figure out what was going on with the bright green article - but I do want to say that I'm not sure Salix alba's cites are particularly mainstream. Bruce Sterling appears to have had a very long personal relationship with the Whole Earth Magazine (which is out of business), so it's not at all surprising they let him edit an issue. As for Time Digital, it was not Time magazine, but an offshoot magazine about the Net that didn't last very long (and doesn't appear to even have a WP stub about it). --Aaron 17:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is note-worthy for reasons explained above. Perhaps it should be expanded. --Loremaster 18:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above ikh (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity of Viet Nam Fatalities[edit]

Rambling, marginally comprehensible, problems with tone (frequent use of "I think"), problems with NPOV. Looks like a chunk of someone's paper, cut and paste without context. Might also be interpreted as containing ethnic slurs, although the prose is so convoluted I couldn't quite decide. Delete, unless someone's willing to do a massive cleanup - Csari 04:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not at all clear why it is relevant to anything at all. At best should have some elements merged into various other articles on the Vietnam war. JoshuaZ 05:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it looks like an essay and sounds like an essay... --Kinu 05:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd say it wasn't much of an essay. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This essay isn't relevant to anything (not even to its own title!) Completely worthless crap. Grandmasterka 05:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't find much I would consider merging anywhere else --Krich (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper above Prodego talk 15:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is this some school essay? I really couldn't be bothered reading it after the second line, it's terrible. Nothing to clean up here. Average Earthman 15:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (by nominator) - if it is a school essay, I suspect it failed! Csari 20:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's so badly-written I couldn't go past the first couple of lines. -- Mithent 22:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mess.Blnguyen 05:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nomination. It's downright painful to read. Maybe, theoretically, it could be cleaned up into something useful on the subject, but it would involve such a massive rewrite as to totally junk the article and start anew. --Wingsandsword 09:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.--み使い Mitsukai 01:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Drummond[edit]

I'm not sure what this is. I wasn't able to find any hits searching the web for this material. Fiction? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The subject is not notable just for running around in certain circles, and the recovered letters are not notable because Victorian days are well documented Ruby 05:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at best this uncontextualized guff is Historical FictionCruft, at worst patent nonsense. ++Deiz 13:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper above Prodego talk 15:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is written as a fictional short story. The actual existence of this person is unverifiable, and this person sounds non-notable if existant. TheKMantalk 19:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — www.thepeerage.com indicates she existed; was the daughter of Andrew Agnew, and married Thomas Henry Clifton. So there is some element of truth to it. — RJH 17:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. Still, can't really see how this person would be notable. — TheKMantalk 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stash[edit]

non-notable artist whose entry in the Wikipedia was crafted by 'LNF Productions' who also happens to manage him... Sukiari 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L.N.F. PRODUCTIONS[edit]

LNF productions: no records, 1 myspace page, and a whole lot of edits promoting their artists, all non-notable Sukiari 05:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All Google hits are self-referential or Wikilinks. Definitely not-notable per WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 05:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Prodego talk 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if they were at all notable, they would be using WP and MySpace as their main promotional sites. Get these Wiki-abusers off! Camillus (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable company. — TheKMantalk 19:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per all of the above. Bad ideas 05:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisement. As Camillus said, if it had any notibility, it wouldn't be using MySpace and Wikipedia as main methods of promotion. --Wingsandsword 09:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article tried to blank this page, which I reverted. Posting here because I forgot to write it in the edit summary. This is the second time this page has been blanked. My vote remains unchanged. Bad ideas 05:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 noon. why not? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:20, Feb. 11, 2006

Noontide[edit]

Transwiki. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This belongs at Wiktionary, as the tag on the page indicates. Hbackman 05:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Noon, the second definition is an unknown or novel use Ruby 05:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to noon Prodego talk 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:22, Feb. 11, 2006

Susan Clancy[edit]

Seems to be primarily known for one book, article created by anon, does not link to or from anything else in WP. Despite the fact that I may look this book up myself, I'll have to call WP:VANITY on it and vote delete. SarekOfVulcan 05:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is about Clancy's theory rather than a discussion of the notability of the author herself. WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  13:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Prodego talk 15:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious/Speedy keep, irresponsible nomination, even if the article may be lousy. Notable author whose work is viewed as significant by reputable sources. [9] [10] Roughly 10,000 Google hits for a Harvard University Press book published near the end of 2005 ought to demonstrate notability. Editors who make and support nominations like this, without making the slightest effort to check out the subject(s) involved, are more damaging to Wikipedia than garden-variety vandals, and should be discouraged more strongly. Monicasdude 15:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Apparently 217 Ghits rather than 10,000. We should all assume good faith. Dlyons493 Talk 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. [11] gives close to 10,000 hits, and a spot check in the first few hundred had every one I checked out referring to the book or the research underlying it. Too many AfDs are justified by ineptly framed Google searches; just because you can find a way to search that produces a low number of results proves nothing. And why didn't you assume good faith about my search comments? WP:AGF is not a mantra to invoke to deflect opinions or comments you disapprove of. Monicasdude 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment That search give 299 Ghits. And I wasn't commenting on your good faith. Dlyons493 Talk 18:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Actually, I did look at Google. That's how I determined "primarily known for one book".--SarekOfVulcan 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author of a single book, with a 25% non-duplication rate from Google (=2400 or so hits, mostly stock-in-trade references) doesn't scream notability. I would perhaps be tempted to give it the benefit of the doubt if the article weren't so poor. As it stands, delete this. Eusebeus 19:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. 924 Google hits for "Susan Clancy" alien to weed out other Susan Clancys see [12].

She also does well on a Google scholar search [13]. Capitalistroadster 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Does very well on Lexis Nexis academic search; has appeared on NPR, her book was reviewed in the New York Times, and wrote an article in the (London) Times Higher Education Supplement. [14]. Bad ideas 05:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster and Bad ideas; widely reviewed book by major press; Amazon rank ca. 19,000-- not sure if this means 5,000 sales guideline is likely to have been met.--MayerG 05:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. alien abductionists want to hide this from you ;-). -- Waveguy 06:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete A8. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOLL SOLL[edit]

A kids' baseball league. I {{prod}}ed this earlier, but the template was removed on the basis that it's been around since 1981. It is, despite being 25 years old, inherently non-notable. Community-based sports for the kids might be beneficial and all-round good fun, but there's nothing encyclopaedic about them. Delete BadSeed 05:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Age does not make this notable, and such organizations exist everywhere. Also a WP:Copyvio: the content is lifted directly from the linked website. --Kinu 05:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added Speedy (A8) tags to this, as page is less than 48 hours old. Remove if contested. --Kinu 06:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Kinu. Ardenn 07:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:25, Feb. 11, 2006

Archie Miles[edit]

Editing history shows many edits inserting advertorial content, page is largely vanity oriented. Non-notable photographer attempting to sell his wares. Sukiari 05:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:25, Feb. 11, 2006

Smash Power Rankings[edit]

Not notable, most likely. A list that doesn't give a source, and 14 Google hits. Evil saltine 05:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Pathoschild: CSD A7 --lightdarkness 05:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan g. thompson[edit]

Delete as vanity. Google searches for "Nathan G. Thompson" and "Nathan Thompson" turn up no pages about this particular Nathan G. Thompson, as far as I can tell. Hbackman 05:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy no claim of notability, USCGA is not a D1 school and there is no indication that he actually even attends there. -Drdisque 05:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:32, Feb. 11, 2006

Strategy of Settlers of Catan[edit]

Original research, unlikely to be encyclopedic ever. Scott Ritchie 05:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The "reference" is a blog entry... need I say more? Definitely should've been {{prod}}ed! :) --Kinu 06:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Prodego talk 15:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. — TheKMantalk 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I play this boardgame and it's notable among strategy games, but a strategy article about the game is not encyclopedic. A pretty good article, but Wikipedia is not a gamers' guide. I don't think this should even be merged into the parent article. Barno 19:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination: Original Research. --Wingsandsword 09:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Great game, un-encyclopedic article. Essexmutant 05:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 13:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parasite singles[edit]

Not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. Does not cite sources. This appears to be little more than a concept from some sociology paperback, which likely masks some political or cultural agenda. Suggestions for what else to do (merge) with this article are welcome. Shoehorn 05:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep relates to Japanese sociological phenomenon of children refusing to engage with outside world, certainly notable, and has had media coverage, but article needs work. A related concept is Amae. -- Paul foord 06:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amae is not a related concept. --Mkill 19:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hikikomori, as some of the topics mentioned on this page are mentioned there, so expansion would be helpful. Further, hikikomori is a term that is more commonly known and accepted (especially as per a recent NYT article). --Kinu 06:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)After review, I abstain per my lack of proper knowledge on the topic to make a judgment. --Kinu 17:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely do not merge with Hikikomori, because Hikikomori is a severe disorder, while "parasite single" can refer to people with jobs and active social lives who are still living with mom and dad. AnonMoos 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am quite leery of a sociological topic that is getting a lot of current media coverage, particularly in this era of Fox News. This needs more than a NYT article, and a more thorough history going back several years. Shoehorn 06:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- I have no idea if it's a validated social-science concept, but if it's getting wide media discussion, then it's notable on that basis. AnonMoos 07:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well-written article that explains the concept's significance quite well, although it could probably use more citation. It's not the same thing as hikikomori and I feel it deserves its own article (but I'm no expert on Japanese social concepts...) Grandmasterka 07:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs sources but a useful article. 714 Google results but include verifiable sources such as the BBC and USA Today [15]

No doubt, a search in Japanese would come up with more. A Google book search came up with three pages showing the term is commonly used. [16] Google Scholar comes up with 76 results too [17]. Both verifiable and a notable phenomenon in Japanese society. [18]

  • Strong keep. Notable. jdb ❋ (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The topic is well known in Japan, in frequency of usage probably comparable to Yuppie in the US. Hikkikomori is a related but definitely different subject. (Disclaimer: I am one of the major contributors to the article, and also contributed significantly to Hikkikomori. I am also no Japanese, and have no political or cultural agenda beyond improving the coverage of Japan in Wikipedia) -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The concept of Yuppies has been around for decades. Can you establish a history for this term longer than the past few years? Otherwise it seems like popular slang. At the same time, I'd like to see some evidence that this is a recent social phenomenon, and not something that has happened almost everywhere throughout history -- I mean come on, kids living with their parents is nothing new. Shoehorn 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kids living with their parents is nothing new, but a large fraction of people in their twenties feeling no real pressure to marry or contribute to household expenses, and spending almost all their income on discretionary purchases, is fairly new... AnonMoos 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Especially in a society where early marriage is normal and expected. Oh, and the term "yuppie" dates to 1984, and I seriously doubt that you would have used the "only the past few years" test in the 1988 equivalent of Wikipedia. "Recent sociological phenomenon" is, strangely enough, recent. --Calton | Talk 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why is this social phenomenon significant? Shoehorn 03:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, I don't know, maybe because it's a significant alteration in a conservative society's behavior and affects everything from economics to the country's low birthrate. The multiple Google Scholar and Google Book hits might have been the tiniest clue as to significance. A better question is, why do you keep asking pointless rhetorical questions? --Calton | Talk 07:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Why do I ask rhetorical questions? Because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not some spurious letter to the editor about "those darn kids who won't get jobs." Please, show me something more than a crackpot theory about a "conservative society" and a 500 word article in the Times. Shoehorn 10:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • On a side note, Shoehorn, could you try a more neutral language. Calling it bullshit or crackpot theory does not aid a factual discussion. Also, as another info, the German article on this topic has 1100 words and the Japanese one has 900 words. Thanks. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • What part of The multiple Google Scholar and Google Book hits might have been the tiniest clue as to significance did you overlook? Multiple? Scholar? Books? Clue? --Calton | Talk 00:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The topic is of great importance on current japanese society.-- Roc VallèsTalk|Hist - 14:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide research to back up this position. Shoehorn 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try here: "Parasites in Prêt-à-Porter", from the New York Times, July 1, 2001 (Requires TimesSelect subscription) and "Japan's 'parasite singles'". Also, assuming you're serious, browse through Google Book excerpts while you're at it. --Calton | Talk 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not personally impressed by these sources, as material on which to construct an encyclopedia entry. Only time will tell if this social/political straw man is worth noting. Shoehorn 03:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course you're not impressed: you keep asking questions which have been answered and ignore references which meet at least minimal standards of genuine scholarship in favor of denigrating and loaded language to dismiss it. It's clear you have, for whatever reason, already decided what this is, evidence or arguments to the contrary be damned. Whether your motive is stubbornness, embarrassment, prejudice, axe-grinding, or contrariness on your part is immaterial: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Prodego talk 15:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've read this article before and found it to be informative. --AlexWCovington (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ~ 1000 google hits on the English phrase alone, with a 50% non-duplication rate. Presumably JP:WP has a better entry on this and it could be used to tidy up this one, which needs some help. Eusebeus 19:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known sociological topic in Japan. Within *.go.jp sites, "parasite singles" gets about 29 google hits and search in Japanese produces about 148 google hits. --Kusunose 01:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real phenomenon, though the article needs more definitive sources. --Calton | Talk 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Genuine phenomenon in Japan, worth an encyclopedia article. Fg2 09:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
136,000 Google hits in Japanese. No close connection with hikkomori. Fg2 09:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a genuine phenomenon, acknowledged and discussed by many Japanese-language sources as well as many other sources including CNN, the BBC, and the NY Times. Not, as the original poster suggested, "a concept from some sociology paperback, which likely masks some political or cultural agenda." LordAmeth 11:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one's an easy decision. CES 12:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a genuine phenomenon in Japan, similar to that of the Twixter problem in the US, British NEETs or similar ones elsewhere.--み使い Mitsukai 16:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "some concept from a sociology paperback" is actually enough for a keep, so thanks to Shoehorn for giving the reason. Even if is more like "a pile of paperbacks and lots of scientific papers" in the present case. Bless ignorance. --Mkill 19:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs work, but this is indeed a genuine phenomenon. It's been the subject of countless press articles, and as a personal note, I know many of these parasite singles myself. --awh (Talk) 02:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chris 73 Lyo 04:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep notable topic. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable subject and, again, a very real phenomenon. If the article is cleaned up then Strong Keep. --Every1blowz 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 a reposted copyvio. —Cryptic (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barrett[edit]

Falls under Wikipedia:Autobiography, as Chrisbarrett2006 created it. In addition, a previous VfD resulted in a deletion.

Rory096
05:37, 5 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 — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:37, Feb. 11, 2006

Sententiae[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, and the site is apparently now defunct anyway. Hbackman 06:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 13:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JBT[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Hbackman 06:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Kinu 06:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of political epithets. AnonMoos 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps it should be redone as an article under Jack Booted Thugs discussing the increasing militarization of law enforcment and disregard of civil rights. --O.F.Fascist 09:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Prodego talk 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more than a dicdef, delete. Average Earthman 15:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Jervis Bay Territory is a significant concept in Australian politics. The acronym is noted on the Australian government website discussing the territory [19]. The redirect has been in place since June, 2004 it was replaced by an obsucre definition in January, 2005 and then sent to AfD a month later. Cedars 01:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 15:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marehan[edit]

Unverified, non-notable. Delete Ardenn 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Magic, Inc.[edit]

Advertisement, vanity. nn. Delete Ardenn 06:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete —Cleared as filed. 15:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Call This Music?! Volume 2[edit]

Delete; non-notable, with only 64 Googles. King of Hearts | (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Does only 64 google entries really cause an entry to be non-notable? What number of google entries makes something notable? 64 isn't pages and pages of results, but seems like a large enough number to remain notable. PS-My search brought up 69.... Madangry 00:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the preceding comment was made by the creator of the article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I second that verification. But King of Hearts, you did not answer the question. And I still have no idea how google can be a basis of non-notability. Madangry 00:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • (copied from User talk:King of Hearts#How many entries?): The Google test is just a rough guideline to check for notability, and less than 100 results probably isn't enough. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • For future voters on this article, copied from The Google test: "This technique works reasonably well for weeding out hoaxes, fictions, and personal theories and hypotheses. It can also be used to ascertain whether a topic is of sufficiently broad interest to merit inclusion in the wiki, though this application is highly subject to bias...In some cases, articles have been kept with Google hit counts as low as 15 and some claim that this undermines the validity of the Google test in its entirety. However, in fact, this reflects on the rather uneven and subjective nature of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process more than on the usefulness of the Google test. The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an imperfect tool used to produce a general gauge of notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive." .Madangry 00:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • See User talk:King of Hearts#How many entries? for additional thoughts on Google relevance for underground punk albums. Madangry 01:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Given that Wikipedia is mainstream, doesn't adding underground punk acts compromise their rebellious spirit (or some other inane excuse the glue-sniffing retards use for living in a slum and making music that sounds like a man vomiting on a microphone). --Agamemnon2 10:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is up with personal feelings on this deletion? Deletion should have nothing to do with personal feelings toward a subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Remember that. (PS-Agamemnon: your user page says you listen to Iron Maiden....and this according to my own personal feelings (since we're doing that now) is what a band sounds like making music that "sounds like a man vomiting on a microphone.") Madangry 15:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of what you think about including or not including "punk acts" and how it would comprimise those "punk acts" that does not mean Wikipedia does not already have punk album-related articles and that compromising their spirit means it should be deleted. Look under Wikipedia deletion FAQs. Madangry 15:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I haven't seen any proper or real rationales given to either keep or delete this article. Johnleemk | Talk 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, it has potential. Ardenn 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Difficult. It read like a promotional release, but I've cleaned it up a little. I think at the end of the day if the record label is notable this ought to be considered notable too? --kingboyk 08:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks promotional, and is non-notable by Google. - CorbinSimpson 19:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and expand This can be made into a useful article yet - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 21:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some (only a few) of the bands on this compilation have articles on them, so maybe if one could check out these articles for notability, then it could maybe decide whether we should delete this article or not. Check the bands on the compilation You Call This Music?! Volume 1 as well. EdGl 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cleanup would be a good idea! I agree with Kingboyk... Madangry 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the article comes to make some sort of claim of notability. Tuf-Kat 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT In response to notability, added an excerpt from an OC Weekly SPOTLIGHT review which was published shortly after the release and still available online after a quick search. No contest the reviewer saw the CD as quite notable, if not a great impact to the genre. Madangry 21:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

**Comment. Madangry, are you sure that excerpt doesn't violate WP:COPY? EdGl 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor League News[edit]

spam ccwaters 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not a bloody vote. Johnleemk | Talk 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree, what are you getting at here? What is this in response to? —Cleared as filed. 05:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What debate is this? I count one pure vote ("cleanup"), a one-word nomination ("spam") and a half-vote ("per nom"). There's no debate, no attempt to even show this is non-notable. If a CNN staffer (for the sake of it, assume CNN is red) created a spammy article about CNN, I wouldn't AfD it -- I'd clean it up into a one-word stub if it appears notable. Johnleemk | Talk 16:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, does this appear notable? Sometimes things obviously aren't, and there's no point having a "debate" then. This article doesn't exactly compare with CNN. If someone wants to assert the notability of this article, then we can start having a debate. —Cleared as filed. 16:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it didn't assert notability, it would have been speedied. Although on second thought, I think only biographies not asserting notability are speedieable. I think my point still stands, though. By default, anything on Wikipedia is notable enough for inclusion as per AGF. Nominating it on AfD means you should show in good faith why the article subject should not be included. There's not even an explanation of why this is considered spam. I've seen far spammier articles than this. Johnleemk | Talk 16:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is some history: User_talk:Ccwaters#"Promotion" of website The author User:Mlnsports did nothing but create redundant categories involving minor league hockey for the sole purpose of linking back to his advertisement. ccwaters 17:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So why couldn't you have said that in the nomination in the first place? :p Johnleemk | Talk 17:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear WP:VSCA, as the author is Mlnsports. Notability is contested. --Kinu 06:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The original author's behavior is not grounds for deleting the article if it otherwise meets inclusion criteria. It appears to be a substantive resource covering a newsworthy/notable subject in greater scope/depth than any comparable web resource. Wikipedia devotes extensive space to commercial enterprises like Pokemon and interminable displays of obsession with commercially successful but artisitcally insubstantial musical performers. Most of the "nonnotable" "votes" amount to little more than individual editors saying "I have no interest in the field and have never heard of the subject of the article"; those are not valid grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 20:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alexa ranking is 464,010... I don't know much about alexa.com, but I know some Wikipedians make reference to it, and 464,010 sounds like a relatively bad ranking... EdGl 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable site and advert/spam. MCB 07:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As non-notable, as well as advertisment. --Wingsandsword 09:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. -- Pierremenard 08:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 15:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gar alperovitz[edit]

Smells like a vanity page to me Deville (Talk) 06:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable academic, with a long list of pieces in major publications [23]. The list only dates back to 1996, so I'm sure he has many more. The page needs to be moved for capitalization. Also, while the page may well be a vanity page, I have serious doubts. It just seems that if it had been written by Gar Alperovitz it would not be so sloppy and would be significantly longer, but maybe he just found wiki markup confusing. btm talk 07:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no evidence that this is autobiographical; it is posted from an IP belonging to Virginia Commonwealth University rather than Alperovitz's own University of Maryland. As he is obviously notable, it really doesn't matter much. "Gar Alperovitz" gets 45,300 hits on Google (I doubt there are many others with that name), 933 hits on Google Books, and 249 hits on Google Scholar. His 1965 book Atomic diplomacy which has been republished in at least three additional editions (1966, 1985 and 1994), is available in thirteen Swedish research libraries in its first English edition alone, and a Swedish translation was published in 1973. u p p l a n d 09:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Gar Alperovitz. --AlexWCovington (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep, some cleanup required. Nomination borders on vandalism. Monicasdude 20:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Gar Alperovitz. Notability is obvious. As for the nomination, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Ikkyu2 21:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per u p p l a n d and Ikkyu2. EdGl 22:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Move to Gar Alperovitz also a good idea. Cleanup definitely needed too. An article in poor shape, but appears to a notable academic. (sorry, forgot to sign this earlier) --Wingsandsword 19:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to Gar Alperovitz. The problem is not the nomination but a wholly unreferenced article with a mis-capitalized title that made its content seem suspect. Cleanup needed.--MayerG 05:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move per above. Include redirect. Notable author and academic. TMS63112 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Keep, see below, Delete - his citation record on Google Scholar is wholly non-notable. Most academics accumulate similar citation/publication records over the course of their careers. If we keep him, then we need pages for most US academics. -- Pierremenard 08:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • Comment. I'm a US academic. Most of us do not accumulate a similar record.--MayerG 15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, he has 28 citations. I do believe that most academics can surpass 28 citations, no? -- Pierremenard 02:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC) . Oops, did not count citations at the end of his record. 48 citations. Still less than average for a career number, no? -- Pierremenard 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why do you think it is relevant to focus on one and only one of the indications of notability I mentioned above. Why do you think Google Scholar alone gives an accurate picture of an academic who has been active since the 1960s, when it has a bias towards electronic publications from the last few years? The fact that his dissertation from 1965 has been re-published thrice and translated to Swedish, a language with a much smaller book market than English, says something, doesn't it? (BTW, checking the KVK, I now find a German translation from 1966, as well as a German translation of one of his other books, in German titled Hiroshima: die Entscheidung für den Abwurf der Bombe.) Are you just trying to be the Devil's Advocate? u p p l a n d 06:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are right. I don't know how I missed your comment above on this page - you have clearly established notability. -- Pierremenard 07:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:40, Feb. 11, 2006

Johnny cash euchre[edit]

Non notable card game. No verifiable details about origin or popularity. Possible hoax. Delete TheRingess 06:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. No GHits found. I wouldn't be surprised if this game was invented one afternoon after watching Walk the Line. --Kinu 06:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. --Wingsandsword 10:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki. W.marsh 23:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Seventh of March Speech[edit]

Transwiki to Wikisource and delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:41, Feb. 11, 2006

Kristen Peck[edit]

Unverifiable. Likely hoax. No hits in IMDB. — TheKMantalk 06:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, and don't bite the nominator, either. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:45, Feb. 11, 2006

My Ticket Outta Here[edit]

Vanity, advertisement, nn. Delete Ardenn 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three whopping results for "my ticket outta here" "curtis akey" on Google. Doesn't seem very notable to me. --Kinu 06:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems viable. Just because Google hasn't found it does not necessarily make in not worthy of note. Kukini 07:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not (yet) notable. btm talk 07:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Joe 18:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 10:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notability criteria Bad ideas 07:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bad faith nom, made 2 minutes after article's creation. User:Ardenn also attempted to remove references as vandalism. don't bite the newcomers. -- Vansig 21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - don't see any reasons for notability. -- Pierremenard 08:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 07:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-toy[edit]

Non-notable... whatever it is. Some kind of technology. The article isn't even descriptive enough to say what.

Rory096
06:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pure nonsense TheRingess 06:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BJAODN. Ardenn 06:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Speedy delete Ardenn 07:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: G1. It's nonsense. Not even worth a BJAODN. --Kinu 07:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 17:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panty Waste[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panty Waste

User:Pickelbarrel, who previously created Panty waste wrote this article. Random exhibits in art galleries don't get encyclopedia articles. Rhobite 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: G4. Also, might be worth a {{deletedpage}}. --Kinu 07:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a speedy candidate, it is not substantially identical to a deleted article. Rhobite 07:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks the same to me, per the description on the original AfD page (such as the link which goes to a page of pictures with "Art" beneath each and the unencyclopedic advertisement). Of course, without seeing the original I can't be 100% sure. --Kinu 07:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was speedy deleted out of process. Should have gone through the full AfD. Rhobite 07:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, gotcha... wasn't aware of the lack of process on that one. In that case, I'll change my vote to plain ol' delete. Still might be worth the {{deletedpage}}, based on the persistence of the user in question to keep producing this and similar articles. One has to wonder what his connection is to the topic (i.e., possible vanity). --Kinu 07:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • My connection was not a coincedence, emperor Cenestrad] came across the article while I was triing to make an article about the term panty waste, and suggested that it would make a legitimate article. I am not as knowing as many wiipedians, so its hard for me to contribute on some of the more comples articles...but this one hadnt been written yet, so it was a bit easier. The museum is a real place, although it is only open one for a couple of weeks every year. I think with help it may become a pretty good article, and will attempo to kep working on it even while its being considered for deletion.pickelbarrel 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's no indication that this is anything more than a one-time exhibit in a gallery. It seems to have opened in 2003, and it doesn't look like the exhibit is there anymore. Obviously we can't make articles about every art gallery exhibit. Rhobite 19:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I had found info of at least three years(i beleive) of this exhibit running. But I was blocked for a month for writing this article before i could add the info(My block was eventually reverted). I will try to relocate the information, but dont assume that just because we only have the one date so far, that is the only date. I am also Triing to get ahold of Ricky Lee to see if she can add info. If you do not like the article I respect your oppinion, but I do hope the silliness of blocking editors because they have written an article that the knowing ones veiw as being beneath wikipedia ceases. Noone is so smart that they cant still learn from a childpickelbarrel 19:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I almost forgot to vote...Although I acknowledge it needs to be expanded. user:karmafist has been feeling a little beat up, and I thought his emotions were more important than any immediate work on this article. pickelbarrel 22:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google search on "panty waste" "underwear museum" brings up only 20 hits, and articles about every individual art gallery exhibit seem unnecessary. - dharmabum 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I tried the "more reasonable" "panty waste" +museum search, and only around 10 of the first 50 hits (297 total) were about the actual exhibit; they were mostly about other topics with use of "panty-waste" as misspellings of the invective "panty-waist". - dharmabum 07:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment So that would average out at about 60 hits by my math...I think that checking "panty waste" + "art" might give a more accurate result of related articles, allowing for articles that talk about pieces featured in at Panty Waste as well pickelbarrel 17:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A more reasonable search of "Panty Waste" + museum netted over 300 hits. Sites indicate that this museum has been open 3 years (I found listings for events at the museum in 2003, 2004 & 2005) Plus notable bay area artist have created art specific to the museum. Needs work but worth working on. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As near as I can tell this is not a museum, but rather an exhibit in a museum, albeit a long-running one. As such it has does not need its own article, although this information might be used in an article on the Balazo gallery. Dsmdgold 15:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So your vote would be actually Merge if there existed an article on the Balazo gallery? -- Malber (talk · contribs) 17:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so, although for purposes of balance this should probably warrant only a line or two within the larger article. (I assume that the gallery has run many exhibitions, so unless this is a permanent feature it should only be mentioned in passing.) Dsmdgold 16:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as before per WP:BALLS. Stifle 16:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a foolish thing to say. This may be a nonnotable exhibit but it is far from bollocks. Check the link if you need to and you will fing that even if the exhibit is not encyclopedic it does exsist. So don't add monkey gibber and think before you type. If you can't do that than block yourself for a day or two. This I Order For The Common Good.--The Emperor of Wikipedia 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Emperor. Kappa 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above per the Emperor--SammyTerry 23:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above user has 12 edits, all of them to AfD pages or own user page. Rhobite 15:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. No further debate or action required. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheder Chabad Lubavitch[edit]

A school of 30 kids is not notable, note that this school may share the name of other schools with the same name. Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 07:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this page has since redirected it and merged it into another article. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 15:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal[edit]

Advertisement, vanity. nn. Delete Ardenn 07:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you looked at the pages that linked to the article, you would see that it is very notable - the organization obtained a court interdict blocking the publication of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. You will also see them mentioned in this regard if you do a search on Google News. Their actions is likely to raise important constitutional questions in South Africa about freedom of speech. That in itself should prove sufficient justification for keeping the article.
In addition, it also appears to be a notable group in its own right, with significant political influence [24]. Park3r 07:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: they are a significant and recognized Islamic organization, with published material read and followed by Muslims well beyond South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.160.162 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 8 February 2006
  • Keep per Park3r. Can't see how it fits into "advertisement" or "vanity". Camillus (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Park3r Dlyons493 Talk 17:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful -- Marvin147 02:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant enough in the news that it's notable and verifyable. --Wingsandsword 10:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't like the idea that "one-hit wonders" get their spot on Wikipedia as they are unlikely to pass the ten year test (i.e. will they be remembered in 10 years' time?). While the organisation is fairly well-known in South Africa, they have achieved fame primarily through this ruling (which is quite significant and is likely to be appealed by several newspapers). BUT, they are not famous in their own right; the article itself does not quote third party verifiable sources to prove the importance of the subject. Zunaid 12:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006

Zbot[edit]

Software with no discernible notability, alexa rank for project page of 904,570 Ruby 07:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006

Adriana Acorah[edit]

Delete. This is Billie_joe121's third "Adriana" hoax page. See the AfD votes for Adriana Brady and Adriana Rogers. As for this article, IMDB lists no Adriana Acorah on the show Footballers Wives. The timeline of this hoax does not line up with Bianca Perez's actual marriage to Mick Jagger. 1 The clothing store ownership claims are equally silly. Vslashg 07:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. btm talk 07:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu 07:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination: a hoax --Wingsandsword 10:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I concur with the issuance of a final warning to the creator. He's just wasting our time. --kingboyk 21:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete time wasting hoax Swilk 07:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006

Wires on fire[edit]

Not a speedy because they have "played the notable SXSW festival twice" but they are "currently in the studio recording their debut album" Ruby 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now, write a new one when they have 2 albums or a billboard hit. At least the article is not breif. feydey 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Wingsandsword 10:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006

Mr 9mm[edit]

Not patent nonsense but leaning quite to the bullocks side, unless Mr 9mm is supposed to be a character in something. Ruby 07:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Also meets WP:VAIN; creator is Mr 9mm. Since this is pretty ridiculous, it might be fun to BJAODN or userfy it. --Kinu 07:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. Ardenn 07:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like bollocks to me. Gimboid13 09:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete some kid using Wikipedia as a brain-dump for his imagination - not even funny enough for WP:BJAODN - just patent nonsense. Camillus (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I don't think this deserves a reason. Bobby1011 18:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, then delete. WP:BALLS. Ikkyu2 21:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, joke and not a very good one at that. Bad ideas 07:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006

Mundoon[edit]

Small, non-notable town. Delete Ardenn 07:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 5000-6000 inhabitants? I wouldn't call that small, really. It deserves to stay.SoothingR 07:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentDelete: Google yielded nothing to the existence of this town. Abstain until someone can verify its existence one way or the other. Ruby's research/knowledge, which I trust, seems to corroborate that. --Kinu 07:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC); updated Kinu 08:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Golly that's a nice compliment, Kinu. Ruby 14:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no town of Mundoon, there's a place called "Mundoon Waterhole" in Queensland but it doesn't have 6000 people, no way. Ruby 07:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here's two refs to Mundoon Waterhole [25] [26], but I agree with Ruby: Mundoon doesn't exist. --Aaron 08:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's beautiful downtown Muldoon Waterhole. --Aaron 08:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Google search for Mundoon Queensland came up with nothing to verify this see [27]. On the other hand, a search for Mundoo, Queensland came up with 62,000 hits [28]. Mundoo seems to be near Cairns but I doubt that much coal is mined there - certainly Google came up with nothing to indicate that. Capitalistroadster 10:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just checked my Macquarie World Atlas, an Australian atlas which has comprehensive coverage of Australia - no mention of Mundoon. Capitalistroadster 10:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 10:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)" Capitalistroadster 10:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Australia Post has no record of a town called "Mundoon", that's as definitive a test as I can think of. - Synapse 16:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination is terse to the point of invalidation. There's no grounds to delete an article on an established locality, no matter how small. If the nomination is because the town doesn't exist, then say so. --AlexWCovington (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ruby. --Rory096 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete what was this guy thinking? Bobby1011 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Geoscience Australia search for Mundoon found nothing[29], found a proposal for a school at Mundoon, NSW[30]. Place would appear defunct if it ever existed. -- Paul foord 05:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is a town called Mundoona in Victoria (northwest of Shepparton) but it' not a coal mining area. I would therefore argue for a Delete. --Roisterer 07:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax--Porturology 10:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not because it's "non notable" (every town is notable as far as I'm concerned) but because it's unverifiable. --kingboyk 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:49, Feb. 11, 2006

Break the Record[edit]

The article itself states that this is a rumored title. Following that logic, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Furthermore, when I tried to look for sources on the internet, Google didn't throw up anything of use, so it seems to be a fanmade title as well. SoothingR 07:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 07:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No verification anywhere. If deleted, I would also revert Plus 44 to remove the information about this possibly hoax title. --Kinu 07:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NOT --lightdarkness 07:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sarge Baldy 10:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hey, what up y'all. Bionic Jared here, I am the one who started this article and I know it's completely worthless. But I am only trying to make the Plus 44 article better by adding the images of Mark and Travis. Anyway, I have nothing against you guys deleting this article, 'cus I know it's crap. I'll wait in the future until Plus 44 makes their album title official then I'll see what I can do. Until then I'm going to search for other articles such as Plus 44 that I can make it to be better. Later, Bionic Jared 8:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nomination. --Wingsandsword 10:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eel Pie Boat[edit]

nn. Thought about listing this for speedy deletion but it's been around for a while. Maybe it could be merged with Eel Pie Island but I can't see much worth merging. Gimboid13 08:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability of the object (apparently someone's boat).--MayerG 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted under criterion A1. - Lucky 6.9 08:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levad[edit]

Unverifiable and almost certainly non-notable. The subject is "pre-established" and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article also lacks context so badly that it's virtually impossible to tell what it's referring to—for this reason it might qualify as a speedy delete (CSD A1), but for now I'll just say delete. –Sommers (Talk) 08:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing here whatsoever. Classic A1 speedy. Hell, if there isn't anything to say about it, why waste our time?  :) - Lucky 6.9 08:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:00, Feb. 11, 2006

Phooning[edit]

  • Delete: vanity
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Urban or otherwise. --Kinu 08:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep eh? there's like 90,000 Google hits for "phooning" -- I think a couple of people might be attached to it. Adrian Lamo ·· 12:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? The count comes to 72 for me, omitting duplicated pages, and even fewer relevant ones for "phoon". Most of these are titles of photos, and many are related to the phoon.com website. So while I won't argue that this small following doesn't exist, the Google hits are out of distortion because these are not, by and large, websites about or even discussions mentioning phooning. Many are individual photos uploaded to shutterfly, etc. before being sent in to the phoon.com website. Davilla 23:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Weak delete as somewhat not-very notable by google hits. Turnstep 20:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed vote based on closer scrutiny of Google hits, per above. Turnstep 23:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. feydey 16:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanispamcruftisement --kingboyk 23:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was A7 speedy of previously deleted material. Author also used a highly abusive sockpuppet in an attempt to sway the vote. - Lucky 6.9 09:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Liberals of West Vancouver, Sunshine Coast and Sea-to-Sky Country[edit]

  • Started off as a speedy, but there's some notability established. Trouble is, I can't verify the existence of this organization. Anyone in Western Canada familiar with these guys? - Lucky 6.9 08:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They do exist, I'm in the riding and know about it, some of my friends are members however, the article has no useful content and could be considered spam. If a proper article were written, I would say keep but the current article has no point whatsoever.
  • KeepProbably not, as it is a new club. Why don't you email the President of the Young Liberals of BC, Lucky? And why, may I ask, would we be making this up, eh Lucky? - Josh953 12:43am, 5 February 2006 (PST)
  • Keep This organisation is a real organisation representing young Liberals in our riding. I take it as a personal offence that you have deleted our article based purely on your suspicions; and I ask you, what purpose would we have in mind for faking something such as this? Also, this is the first young liberal riding association outside of university clubs.- --Igman 08:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "the club held its inaugural meeting on January 29th, 2006"... hardly notable (yet). Seems more like free spamvertising. Most likely something established during one fine day a week ago. No surprise, feeding Google a partial name (to test for variations) finds nothing either. The comment on its talk page ("This page does not deserve deletion; a Republican hack is after us...") doesn't yield much legitimacy either. --Kinu 08:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An entry for a Young Liberals club, one of the first of its kind and one that is averaging two new members a day, deserves deletion, but Kinu's page doesn't? I have yet to see how Mr. Kinu has established his notability. --Josh953 12:58, 5 February 2006 (PST)
    • I do not have an article about myself. User pages (preceded by User:) are separate entities from article pages. You can have one if you wish to create one as well. --Kinu 09:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepMy oh my, Mr. Kinu; is that not a waste of space on Wikipedia? --Josh953 1:16, 5 February 2006 (PST)
    • The above vote was added by Igman. It is being struck as a double vote, as this user has voted elsewhere in this matter. See history for validation. --Kinu 05:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blocked the above account. Only edits have been to the article in question, to this discussion and the creation of a vile, racist article regarding a non-existent political party whose platform was that of free showers to newly arrived Korean immigrants. - Lucky 6.9 09:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. Delete as nn club, and form a Wikiproject to give free showers to newly arrived vanispamcruftisers (cold ones). --Malthusian (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable local club.Obina 13:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7. I don't see where notability has been established. --Aaron 17:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously nn. Eusebeus 19:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eusebeus. Ardenn 00:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is already a page for the national YLOC - do we need to add chapters or this simply googlebombing? Tawker 04:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7 -- Samir |Talk ∙ Contribs | 07:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was k33p. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:02, Feb. 11, 2006

Realdoll[edit]

In a word, advertising. Delete TheRingess 09:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Page is kind of advertisy right now, but it's a pretty famous product. Not a huge loss if deleted, though. --Allen 18:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not what I was expecting :), but certainly seems notable and verified, so keep. Turnstep 20:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real product, has been the subject of articles in Salon & (if memory serves) Wired, well-known in "popular culture" of Slashdot & Fark. Though I regret citing Fark as a reason to keep something . . . Crypticfirefly 00:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- fairly notable as sex toys go. Haikupoet 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fairly well known product. The article is written from a pretty advertisement standpoint, so it needs cleanup and NPOV, but it's a legitimate subject for an article. --Wingsandsword 10:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've heard of this one via 4Chan and Something Awful, and it's apparently very well known. Agree that the article does need cleanup and NPOV.--み使い Mitsukai 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. as above. -- Waveguy 06:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite is a real and notable product, has been mentioned in legitimate sources. Bad ideas 07:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite as above Zelmerszoetrop 03:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I feel that the doll has become fairly well known and generally gets a lot of attention because of its price tag as well. Needs some rewriting but I think worth keeping. Lummie 01:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. as above.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:04, Feb. 11, 2006

Dirk Been[edit]

  • DELETE - voted off a reality tv show (survivor), not enough information and not really notable as an article Arnzy 09:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Gimboid13 09:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Royboycrashfan 11:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't have an article on everyone ever tangentally involved in a reality show. Adrian Lamo ·· 11:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kinu 17:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: other contestants have articles, first season of ground-breaking reality program, major person in lawsuit filed by Stacey Stillman. Will expand on article. Calwatch 21:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Adrian_Lamo --kingboyk 23:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as non-notable biography (CSD A7).--Alhutch 04:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Z. Gondek[edit]

Delete: Autobiographical, Not neutral point of view

  • Delete nn, self promotion. Gimboid13 09:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 28 google hits, blatant rip from his own blog, as if "hard-nosed" weren't a tipoff. Adrian Lamo ·· 12:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: good luck with the election, though! whatever it is he's running for. since i'll be very surprised if he doesn't show up here now ... Adrian Lamo ·· 12:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nnWhere (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. City council candidate = nn. --Kinu 17:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also see the AfD nomination for Noel Gondek. --Kinu 02:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Campaigning on WP tsk tsk (hey, didn't I just say that?) Ruby 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell Mithun[edit]

Advertisement TheRingess 09:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep those who suggested a merge should consider following up on that. W.marsh 18:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heathian anarchism[edit]

This does not appear to be notable. Searching for this term on google provides 0 hits. Sarge Baldy 10:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable, likely untrue.Amending my vote after further research. Cleanup and move to Spencer Heath. At the least, this title does not seem to be the correct term for the concept. First, cleanup would be beneficial, to remove the OR aspects, and then, move to an article on the individual. In other words, what Tearlach has already suggested below. --Kinu 17:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC); updated Kinu 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is irrelevant to inclusion in Wikipedia. See Jimbo's vote where he explains why the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is sufficient. So long as a topic satisfies the three Wiki criteria of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, it is legit. (Requesting deletion is a sleazy way to try to enforce your sectarian definition of "anarchism," Sarge.) Hogeye 20:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and re-use. While I think the article fairly reports Heath's political philosophy, the problem is that the term "Heathian anarchism" isn't used in any previous published discussion of Heath I can find, so it's a neologism and hence original research. But there's plenty online about Spencer Heath (e.g. here): why not use the material here in a Spencer Heath biographical article? Tearlach 20:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fringe group within a fringe group. Merge into the ancap article. // Liftarn


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

The result of the debate was delete. What nonsense! — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:06, Feb. 11, 2006

Hwg[edit]

Delete. Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Vslashg 10:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 15:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PsyBNC[edit]

Poorly formatted, not much information Thorpe | talk 10:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The author doesn't seem to understand template use. ;) Royboycrashfan 10:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There are 300,000+ Google hits for psyBNC. It's eminently notable, well-known software. Yes, the article sucks and the author was evidently unclear on the concept, but that doesn't mean we delete it and hope someone else creates it later. If it weren't 4AM, I'd fix it myself now, but I'll put it on my list of stuff to desuckify. Adrian Lamo ·· 11:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep are you serious? —This user has left wikipedia 19:20 2006-02-05
  • Speedy keep. Formatting, template use, and lack of information are not grounds for deletion. They are grounds for improving the article via consensus editing. Ikkyu2 21:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy keep. one of the most used BNC applications. -Cyrock


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:07, Feb. 11, 2006

Deepa[edit]

Delete --SammyTerry 23:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 11:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amebo[edit]

delete nigerian slang. Melaen 12:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, then transwiki; dictdef Where (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then transwiki, 13:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary. 05:08, 6 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 11:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Androidism[edit]


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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 15:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Peacock[edit]

Delete: Gushing POV, questionable notability. Gaius Cornelius 12:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable, extremely POV, reads like an advertisement, even some crystal ball. Take your pick. --Kinu 17:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Well-known as author per Google and Google Books search. Somewhat notable as naturalist and as basis for character in quite-influential book The Monkey Wrench Gang. Current version of article is too (auto)biographical and full of ... I hate typing this ... peacock_terms. Barno 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. If "gushing POV" were a standard, the articles on Celine Dion, Gwen Stefani, and Christina Aguilera would have been deleted long ago. Monicasdude 20:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. This currently looks like bumpf to promote his current book so it can lose the peacock phrases. Nevertheless, this man is notable enough in my book. Over 10000 hits through Google with early results about him including verifiable sources see [31]. The University of Texas has a collection of his papers see [32] Six pages of results in Google Books see [33]. Also in Google scholar [34] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs)
  • Definite keep. Additional references added establish meeting criteria for authors. —ERcheck @ 21:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Mayhem[edit]

Asserts no notability, advertising Obli (Talk) 12:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Can it get more vanispamcruftverty than this? --Kinu 17:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. But are you saying it's not notable that they sell Hot Pockets and BooKoo there? Plus they have a website. Doesn't that qualify them for FA status? Joe 18:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, send more BooKoo. Adrian Lamo ·· 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. Bad ideas 07:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I gravely apologize for my mistake. FalconWarrior 17:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey and the Big Break (Part I) Joey and the Big Break (Part II)[edit]

delete un-notable episodes. Melaen 12:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and in view of the fact that the articles are essentially without content. Then again, if we began deleting episodes of "Joey" simply for their non-notability and absence of content, we might delete the whole show. Joe 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 15:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apodization[edit]

'delete dicdef already on wikitionary. Melaen 12:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Apodization is a technique used in optics. It can be used to alter the effects of diffraction. Texts on Fourier optics often discuss this at length. A good article in Wikipedia which describes aspects of apodization as it relates to Fourier optics and diffraction would belong in an encyclopedia not a dictionary.[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs massive improvement. Is there no better process than AFD for finding people to fix articles like this? Georgewilliamherbert 09:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Georgewilliamherbert. This could and should become more than a dictionary definition. Logophile 11:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a worthwhile topic. It's an acceptable start. Edgar181 11:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete, as nothing here was merged to the redirect article, and then redirect to List of school pranks. —Cleared as filed. 15:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead arm[edit]

How widespread and notable is this schoolyard pastime? Difficult to Google search, but it appears to be a term related to baseball. Punkmorten 12:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect. Already explained with a more accepted and accurate non-dicdef at List of school pranks. --Kinu 18:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pencil_fighting lacked consensus and didn't establish a precedent, but does show a reluctance to delete articles about frivolous yet real/actual schoolyard activities. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That doesn't deter me from trying again Adrian Ruby 05:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic - and not written with that intent! VirtualSteve 06:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not encylopedic. —ERcheck @ 06:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Kinu. It's very common, I can assure you, but that description is wrong. It involves just one punch to the upper arm that numbs it, as explained at List of school pranks. --Rory096 06:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rory. Perhaps each of you is right; the List of school pranks explains that some names and acts differ regionally; this should be included too. MyrHerder 11:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, I guess, although I thought a dead arm was what happened when you restricted the blood flow by sitting/lying in an awkward position. -- Mithent 13:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Kinu. PJM 14:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assgasm[edit]

delete neologism. Melaen 12:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete hopefully those calling for keep/cleanup will do that cleanup. W.marsh 23:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sakala (academic corporation)[edit]

Advert for an Estonian 'academic fraternal organisation'. I'm not entirely sure what it is, but it doesn't seem to be on the same level of significance as those American fraternities. Google hits are mostly in Estonian, but even getting past that I didn't see anything that looked like an independent source. A Google for the name of the organisation and the name of the article's creator implies that the article was not created by an outside party. [35] Delete as non-notable group of people (though probably too big to be covered by the speedy criterion). --Malthusian (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definitely non-notable, and it reads like an advertisement. --Kinu 18:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it's a potential WP:Copyvio, as the text is lifted directly from the site. --Kinu 19:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an advertisement. O.K. 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We are proud to be one of the strongest and prosperous fraternities in Estonia... You are always welcome in Sakala’s convent when visiting Tartu. We are especially looking forward to seeing you there in May 2006, when the 43rd BRK/BTK/GVBK is going to be organized by Sakala." --Malthusian (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup: it seems to be a studentenverbindung of the German type (common in the Baltic universities as well), which is no less notable than an American fraternity. It was founded in 1909, nearly a century ago, which is not awfully impressive but quite respectable. It has kept itself alive in exile and re-established itself after the fall of communism in its old house in Tartu, a building designed by the notable Finnish architect Armas Lindgren (he has no article here yet, but he was for some years in partnership with Eliel Saarinen, who is familiar to Americans). If you see past the non-encyclopedic style, you'll find that there is enough cumulative notability here. u p p l a n d 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Uppland. Hopefully this will be cleaned up. Eusebeus 19:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The trouble with cleaning it up is that it would mean either removing most of the text or finding a reliable source for it, and the latter would seem to require a knowledge of Estonian. We're not just talking changing the first person into the third here. Anyone actually planning to do this? --Malthusian (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-black metal[edit]

This is another of a series of made up genres on Wikipedia. The term Post-Black Metal doesnt exist, because the bands advertised are figure heads of the black metal scene (See the Black Metal article. It also claims its a genre that includes black metal bands that do new things - which doesnt exclude them from being Black Metal. The term Post-Black Metal, also claims that the Black Metal scene is no longer prominent, when its grown to be a leading pioneer in Metal Music, as Heavy Metal previously was. The article also makes claim it isnt the same as Symphonic Black Metal, but then goes on to repeat the Symphonic Black Metal article, and its subsidary on the Symphonic Metal article. As such, this article is somebodys obvious distaste for a minute number of Black Metal bands, and has No Notability, No Sources, uses Weasel Language and is overall a complete Neoglistic Strawman Attack at Black Metal bands that do not conform soley to the original sound of Black Metal. Leyasu 13:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Quach[edit]

Delete. Well below WP:BIO as a local small city (pop 88K) council member - was not fully mayor as mayor pro tem just means there was no mayor for a while. In any case, not a national or statewide office, nor exceptionally notable as a local office holder. Pulled from prod since verifyiable Obina 13:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 18:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chewie Pug[edit]

Cute, but apparently very non notable- minus Wikipedia, 18 Google hits. [36] CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 13:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom's Google, "a small worldwide following" is an understatement. This reads more like a fan page than a cromulent biography of a notable animal. --Kinu 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lenzi[edit]

I don't think this guy is notable enough (yet); sure, he has an IMDb entry, but anyone can submit info for an IMDb entry, and it looks to me as if his screen work has been bit parts - it even says in the article "seen for a little time on screen". The original editor's contributions list makes this look like vanity to me. A Google search for Bob Lenzi brings up 71 hits which seem to refer to other people. Delete CLW 13:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looking at the links, I'm not convinced he's actually appeared on Broadway, merely has done plays that have appeared on Broadway. The International Thespian Society is a US high school acting award. The Blood Brothers fan page linked to from the Blood Brothers article doesn't mention him. The more I look into this the less impressive his CV is. We have an average professor requirement, why not an average actor requirement? Average Earthman 15:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Non-notable. Likely a hoax, as for someone who has supposedly been in major Broadway productions like The Last Five Years and Blood Brothers, IBDB hasn't even heard of him. --Kinu 18:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I visited the story on the "International Thespian Festival" provided as a reference in the article. It is a high school affair, which leads me to believe he's in high school. The listing of Blood Brothers under Broadway as I mentioned above was definitely misleading. No wonder IBDB didn't know who he was: it's amateur theater. Seems to be vanity. Amending vote above as "strong" to reflect this. --Kinu 21:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nn-bio -SCEhardT 17:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Food Pirates[edit]

Delete: Non notable, unverifiable, vanity Gaius Cornelius 13:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 15:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per PJM. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 16:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (blanked by creator and such an obvious hoax that it's really not bothering with). David | Talk 14:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Birlestone[edit]

Per comments by Dbiv: Believed to be a hoax. No such peerage creation has been made in the London Gazette. -- DanielCD 14:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 04:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhoot[edit]

delete indian dicdef. Melaen 14:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep after the rewrite
  • Delete per nom. Keep, per changes below.PJM 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary (Hindi), as definition is correct. Keep and cleanup per the new content by Gurubrahma on the page. --Kinu 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC); updated Kinu 05:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Keep after Gurubrahma's edits. utcursch | talk 03:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article has been modified by a user to reflect a relatively well-known Bollywood film. Maybe worth keeping and cleaning up? --Kinu 04:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - A successful Bollywood movie by the same name exists and I have edited it to reflect the fact. would be improved further, hopefully, by the project members. --Gurubrahma 04:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - The movie article can be expanded. - Ganeshk (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand -- This was a fairly successful movie. No reason to delete. Zora 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've heard of (not seen) this movie --SammyTerry 23:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand -- The article will be expanded.
I have expanded it. --M.arunprasad 11:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garasakal[edit]

delete turkish dic def, maybe an attack page Melaen 14:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 15:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kinu 18:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chachy[edit]

delete spanish dicdef. Melaen 14:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ematchfixing[edit]

delete neologism, dicdef Melaen 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. --Kinu 18:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 05:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eagling[edit]

delete neologism, no reference found with this meaning Melaen 15:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. In the future, please Search The Fine Encyclopedia first before deciding something is a neologism. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feature freeze[edit]

delete neologism. Melaen 15:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep redirect. W.marsh 05:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kahbah[edit]

Non-notable kingdom consisting of a single house with 45 members. Fails the criteria of a notable country. Most likely added by the king himself. Delete Dr Debug (Talk) 15:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it to the pre-vanity edit of being a redirect to the article on the Maya ruin, which I think it should remain unless legitimate reason is given to do otherwise. -- Infrogmation 16:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we can close the debate. The user keeps recreating the article, though. Dr Debug (Talk) 17:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect to Kabah, Yucatán Dlyons493 Talk 18:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per reversion to redirect. --Kinu 18:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect and protect page from recreation. Capitalistroadster 21:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect. I love micronations. Do they have a defense budget? -- Marvin147 04:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiendstyle[edit]

delete neologism, 6 google hits. Melaen 15:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Kinu 18:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flink[edit]

delete dutch dicdef. Melaen 15:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No Transwiki, as this definition is unverifiable. --Kinu 18:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourgy[edit]

delete non notable portmanteau, neologism Melaen 15:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism and dicdef. Also non-notable, as even Urban Dictionary doesn't have a definition for it . --Kinu 18:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • move or expand. plenty of google hits [37] -- Marvin147 04:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 04:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kidzone[edit]

advert that doesn't assert notability KeithD 15:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agoura baseball[edit]

Teams from High Schools are not-notable. That film which they are said to be starring in might have gained them notability, but Google hasn't heard of it. Therefore, I have to come to the conclusion that this article is not-notable...SoothingR 15:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable, likely vanity, last part regarding the movie is probably hoax or crystal ball. --Kinu 18:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 23:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phony[edit]

Transwikied dicdef Delete -Doc ask? 15:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Fraud --Allen 17:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or redirect to lie or fraud. --Kinu 18:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI don’t see any reason to delete it. It gives valid information. At most there is a case for transferring it to Wiktionary.Barbara Shack 15:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, distinct concept featured prominently in a major work of literature. Kappa 15:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Pierremenard 08:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. W.marsh 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furrow[edit]

delete transwikied dicdef. Melaen 15:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-name[edit]

delete neologism. Melaen 15:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable and unverifiable neologism. --Kinu 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game44[edit]

Delete. Vanity page -- not ranked on Alexa. [38] ran (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sceptre (Talk) 15:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable "warez" site. Weregerbil 18:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:VSCA from "a guy who is currently 16." --Kinu 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goomph[edit]

delete neologism, few google entries with this meaning Melaen 15:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Kinu 18:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guitfiddle[edit]

delete neologism. Melaen 15:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Kinu 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (non-notable person).--Alhutch 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Shum[edit]

I decided to wikify this article until I came to the point where it says that he saved 2.6 billion people. One would think he'd get a little more than 3 Google hits after saving one third of the world's population. Obli (Talk) 15:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - hoax (2.6 billion saved). —ERcheck @ 16:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Al Bundy-complex. Dr Debug (Talk) 16:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -hoax. (Note: This is my 2.6 billionth edit on AFD) --lightdarkness 16:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 2.6 billion, huh? Yeah, and I'm the Star Wars Kid. --Kinu 18:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete Quick! Before someone sees it. Bobby1011 19:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fortuanately, he got a major injury on the neck and was brought to the" ... deletion queue. Delete, unverifiable, to save 2.6 billion articles on the people he saved. Barno 19:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heartlander[edit]

delete singapore neologism. Melaen 15:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Kinu 18:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hem the meter[edit]

delete slang Melaen 15:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holiminute[edit]

delete neologism? not a single google hit. Melaen 15:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neologism. Dr Debug (Talk) 16:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • HoliDelete per neominatorgism. feydey 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, pass to the left per all above. --Kinu 18:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  16:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baba yetu[edit]

Non-notable song? ComputerJoe 15:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not only non-notable, but the song is only used in a game as well. Dr Debug (Talk) 16:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The linked page Christopher Tin is by a certain editor of the AfDed article, and is likely created as similar non-notable vanity. --Kinu
  • Keep. I found myself looking for what the song was and what it meant and discovered it here. That is the function of an Encyclopedia is it not?
  • Keep. I also found the song, and arguably not notable but still worth keeping.
  • Keep. I find this to be very informative, definately a little piece of knowledge worth keeping. Gotta bring lyrics back, though.

Peter I

  • Keep. Baba yetu has achieved a significant notability among certain circles, and if somthing must be notable in every area of sociaty to be wikipedia worthy, nothing could stay.
  • Keep. I find most of my time on Civ 4 listening to this music. We already have a page dedicated to video game music so I think it is only sensible that we also have pages for the music in question.
  • Keep. Who is to decide that film music is worth keeping while game music is not?! It's a brilliant song anyway...


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. —Cleared as filed. 19:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Dunn[edit]

I became aware of this article after someone pointed it to me in the AfD of Larry Kissell, another candidate, which looks like it will be deleted. My reasons are still the same from that AfD, but I'll summarize them here anyways: WP:BIO states that generally only "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature" and "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" should be included. If he's elected, we should definitely include an article, but until then, I'm not too sure. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Being a lt. Colonel is no small thing. This guy has been mentioned in national media local media been endorsed by former senator Cleland although he only has about 1/10th of his opponent's war chest. If he looses the election then I'll vote for delete, for now he must stay —This user has left wikipedia 16:44 2006-02-05
    • But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; it should be the other way around. If he wins, then we should include him; until then, I don't think that he fits our inclusion criteria. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: You are misunderstand, the Crystal Ball policy reads Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred This guy exists, he has been featured on USA today and he is notable for now. —This user has left wikipedia 17:02 2006-02-05
        • While I respect your opinion, I don't think that being mentioned in an article should qualify; the person should have had "significant" press coverage. A Google News search produces less than 10 relevant results. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nominator is absolutely right. Come back if/when he's elected. Eusebeus 19:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, this does not harm, and he's notable enough - Googling "Tim Dunn" North Carolina gives 49,000 hits. I don't agree with the above that the Lt. Colonel part should have anything to do with it however. Turnstep 20:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI have added some news links so you can see that he's being talked about on a national level. 132.241.245.49 21:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While candidates for office generally don't meet the notability bar, this one appears to have attracted sufficient interest to make him worthy of consideration. Capitalistroadster 00:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. DES (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, major party candidate for national office. Kappa 03:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable as of now, needs to be a page for him only if he wins. -- Pierremenard 08:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology_Auditing_-_Outsider_Explanations[edit]

Unnecessary and OR. Existing articles on Scientology already explain the concept to outsiders wikipediatrix 16:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless the Raelians can have their psycho-spiritual analysis too. —This user has left wikipedia 16:48 2006-02-05
  • Delete. Reads like original research. --Kinu 18:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if this was well-referenced information (it isn't -- trying to find out where these "outsider explanations" are in most cases leads right back to Wikipedia, to articles or even to the user pages of Scientologists) the place for it would be integrated into the existing articles, not in separate articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not much more than a copy of one of the sections of Scientology - Outsider Explanations, which is also being considered for deletion. Matt73 01:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology_-_Outsider_Explanations[edit]

Unnecessary and OR. Existing Scientology articles already explain the concept for outsiders. wikipediatrix 16:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per my vote above —This user has left wikipedia 16:57 2006-02-05
  • Delete. Reads like original research, and rather POV. --Kinu 18:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if this was well-referenced information (it isn't -- trying to find out where these "outsider explanations" are in most cases leads right back to Wikipedia, to articles or even to the user pages of Scientologists) the place for it would be integrated into the existing articles, not in separate articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there's anything in this article that isn't already expressed in Scientology, move it. -cprompt 00:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This topic can be covered in Scientology and Scientology controversy. It is difficult to cover it here without having an attack-counterattack thing happening (hence my NPOV concern). Anyway there is not much useful information in this article that isn't in the main articles on Scientology. Matt73 01:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Herbal Shampoo[edit]

Original Research/advert/WP:NOT a how to guide your pick Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 16:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'delete , if something can be saved move it to wikibooks' Melaen 17:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete take it to luxist.com. —This user has left wikipedia 18:08 2006-02-05
  • Delete per nom. Nothing worth saving, merging, or redirecting. --Kinu 18:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as above. Bondegezou 14:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Władysław Krzysztof Grabiński[edit]

Originaly proposed for deletion with reason: "nn bio - he was born noble and he dies in a war". There are also no entries in Polish wikipedia (he is Polish). Jan Smolik 16:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article seems to be part of bigger project mapping polish nobility. His mother family has a category of its own with 38 articles. But no entry in Polish wiki. Article can be always deleted or moved to some special project later. --Jan Smolik 16:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Think of him as a Polish version of the US revolutionary war nobleman Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier';' —This user has left wikipedia 18:06 2006-02-05
  • Keep at least for now. Maybe worth reviewing later when the overall project is clearer Dlyons493 Talk 18:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure what should be done about this. As Jan Smolik says, the (uncredited) source does indeed appear to be here at a Polish genealogical mapping project Genealogia Dynastyczna. That raises problems of copyright and of verifiability (since Genealogia Dynastyczna carries no information at all about its own sources). Same applies for the whole series of Category:Polish nobility by Witkacy (talk · contribs). Tearlach 20:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The man is a notable figure in Poland and the page is informative. The lack of an article on the Polish site shouldn't be a reason for deletion as it's a less popular language at the moment.Xania 22:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The man is a notable figure in Poland. Odd, then, that I can't find via Google any reference to him except the barest biographical details at Genealogia Dynastyczna and Wikipedia mirror sites. Tearlach 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now; we'll see if more info is added. —Sesel 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page is not informative at all, since it lacks any information about why he is notable. Modern nobility os generally not notable and dying in WWII is a distinction claimed by too many people. While I hope that the article could be improved, which is why I chose to comment on its talk page instead of nominate for AfD back in October, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy (band)[edit]

Fails WP:BAND Anabanana459 17:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was 'delete". --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Du Ma[edit]

delete vietnamese dicdef. Melaen 17:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Filipino Wiktionary (is there one?). -Splashtalk 23:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't. I've deleted the article. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duog[edit]

delete vietnamese dicdef. Melaen 17:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to wiktionary . —This user has left wikipedia 18:02 2006-02-05
  • Delete without Transwiki. Something about the wording of these definitions doesn't make the term seem very cromulent. --Kinu 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki first definition only. "Duog" does indeed mean "place" in Hiligaynon. In English, Duog does not mean "god cat"; in fact it means absolutely nothing in English. (note: Hiligaynon is a Filipino language) — TheKMantalk 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 19:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Stennis Battle Group[edit]

No other aircraft carrier has a battlegroup article, which itself is a transient thing changing most of the time. We do not have articles on the make-up of the Russian Northern Fleet, or USPACOM, far more relevant entities of transient make-up. Xxxxxxxxxxx 17:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE Xxxxxxxxxxx 17:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move it's name should be Strike group see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-74.htm. —This user has left wikipedia 17:58 2006-02-05
  • Comment: Just wanted to say my earlier vote is an effective STRONG KEEP (and move) as it's legit and notable. —This user has left wikipedia 17:59 2006-02-05
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 19:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have a great many articles on military formations, even ones whose compositions change periodically. This one is useful in that it allows the other ships to be connected from articles about their unit's activities without the reader having to wade through longish carrier articles. I also note that absence of related articles is a reason to create them, not a reason to delete the first one (While the US Army has received good top-to-bottom coverage of its units, the Navy is further behind.) Stan 19:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move if necessary. Naval organization is a notable topic IMO. -AlexWCovington (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable carrier battle group (actually, they all are).--み使い Mitsukai 02:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Mitsukai. Kappa 03:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Mike Rosoft 09:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice posted on the corridor of the ground floor at Hietalahdenkatu 7A, Helsinki, Finland[edit]

Some local notice paper at an apartment building. Hardly of any interest to anyone outside the local area, but hey, this is an encyclopedia, and it's supposed to note all things in the world and not play elitist games. Besides, what's a couple of extra kilobytes hurting? Weak keep. JIP | Talk 17:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, let's write encyclopedic articles. feydey 17:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Wikipedia is most certainly not meant to note all things in the world and this is about as notable as my breakfast this morning. Speedy candidate even?--Kalsermar 17:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move somewhere, uh, maybe Hietalahti, Helsinki >. —Achille 2006-02-05 17:56Z
  • Comment: is it really posted directly at the wall, rather than on a board of some kind? In either case, Wikipedia lacks either The wall of the corridor of the ground floor at Hietalahdenkatu 7A, Helsinki, Finland, where the notice on chaining bycycles was posted or The board on the wall of the corridor of the ground floor at Hietalahdenkatu 7A, Helsinki, Finland, where the notice on chaining bycycles was posted. A merge of these important, encyclopedic topics with the article on the corridor of the ground floor at Hietalahdenkatu 7A, Helsinki, Finland would obviously be the correct thing to do in this case. We also lack a List of notices posted in the corridor of the ground floor at Hietalahdenkatu 7A, Helsinki, Finland, in chronological order. (Note that this is not to be counted as any kind of vote.) Tupsharru 18:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article in its present form is an incitement to bicycle theft. Let's not flout the law here, folks. Dlyons493 Talk 18:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the above comments, the key virtue of Wikipedia, apart from not having to pay people to insert and edit articles, would have to be inclusivity and scope. Here was the possibility to have an encyclopedia so comprehensive that no other could possibly compete. Even the most obscure facts could be embraced at no cost, apart from a few kilobytes of disk space. This notice in Hietalahti, Helsinki is certainly a very obscure fact and not very notable at all. However, it is a real notice and its existence can be verified simply by visiting the apartment building in Hietalahti. How many people does the notice need to be notable to in order to be included? Comments like "this is about as notable as my breakfast this morning" are spiteful, unnecessary and are simply a case of shooting oneself in the foot, by alienating people. Tragically, it seems that Wikipedia is failing miserably to play to its strengths of immediacy and inclusivity. JIP | Talk 18:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I have some sympathy with what's being said, it was fairly clear that this was a test Afd to make a point. The virtue of an encyclopedia is that it can give some context and is not just random data. At this level of detail, too much is less useful than too little (rather like Mark Twains German mapmakers). Dlyons493 Talk 18:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though I live nearby, so I am tempted to go and check out if this information can be independently verified. Weregerbil 18:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable piece of paper. — TheKMantalk 18:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Patently non-notable. Need I say more? --Kinu 18:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find it incredible that even the most inclusive of the inclusive do not have limits. Wikipedia has near one million articles. Do you realize that if this article was deemed legitimate and everyone started following suit we would have 50 million articles just on apartment sign postings? Keep some perspective. The "what I had for breakfast" comment may be sarcastic in tone, but is very appropriate; this is actually just a step up from that level of [non]notability. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 18:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Uh ---- what the hell? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, JIP created it (apparently against WP:POINT) and brought it here to argue in favor of keeping an article which (s)he nominated for deletion. Article in its present form is an incitement to AfD cynicism and sarcasm. Barno 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and delete. I laughed. Snurks T C 20:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A complete waste of time. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I once did ("List of Disneyworlds in Andorra" if memory is correct) but I know better now. —Sesel 23:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to BJAODN, this is gold! -- Samir |Talk ∙ Contribs | 07:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etarded[edit]

delete e-neologism. Melaen 17:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete although It's etarded that there are 4000 google results for the term it's gotta be copied over to urban dictionary. —This user has left wikipedia 17:53 2006-02-05
  • Delete Funny neologism. ~MDD4696 18:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kinu 18:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esin[edit]

delete, Turkish dicdef. Melaen 17:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 08:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerritsen Memories[edit]

Unfortunately WP is not a web directory and the page has an alexa rank of 1,904,646 [39] (doesn't meet WP:WEB) feydey 17:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Michael

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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rengerslaan[edit]

Not notable. Photo album of residents of a crummy student housing complex. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I lived in a dorm in college too. Not encyclopedic. No claim of independent notability. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, although... hello there =D. —This user has left wikipedia 18:26 2006-02-05
  • Delete. Non-notable. Also, Wikipedia is not a picture post. (If AfD passes, the linked photos should be deleted as well.) --Kinu 18:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Boring tosh. Totally unworthy of an encyclopedic article. Camillus (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music webzines[edit]

Article seems to exist only to list external links. All relevant information is in Webzine already. Haakon 17:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 23:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond of opposites[edit]

  • ...Delete... The term "diamond of opposites" does not appear in major academic databases covering the topics of psychometrics, education, psychology, or medicine. It appears to be unpublished research and therefore not appropriate for wikipedia. Nesbit 17:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Delete.... According to this doctor's homepage profile, she is the inventor of diamonds of opposites [40] "My research focus continues to shift. 'Measuring Co-existing Opposites', my doctoral thesis (1992) led to the development of the method of the 'diamond of opposites' to assess change in patterns of processes based on the opposites within. I'm involved in developing methods to study creativity (novelty and variability in processes represented by time series data." No claim is made that the theory has any great acceptance, or is even practiced by anyone but herself. However, a google search does reveal some other individuals using the method [41]. Nevertheless, appears new and not widespread enough for notability standard. May be a good candidate for article in future. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing My Vote Entirely. I am no longer sure delete is appropriate based on Nesbit's research below. By the same token, I not sure this is sufficient for keep. Do not count my vote. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research —This user has left wikipedia 18:21 2006-02-05
  • Delete per WP:NOR. --Kinu 18:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fuhgettaboutit. Were it not for "some other individuals using the method", I would cite WP:BALLS. Barno 20:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable psychometrics and gimmicky - appears like a multidimensional approach to scaling dressed up as something else without any indication of how it is used. Poor standards, no citations, very questionable notability. Holon 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... change of vote based on verification, better categorization, and clarification. Holon 05:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will try to find references for this in next 2 days. Lakinekaki 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my vote to Keep on the basis of the following content I found in one of the references that Lakinekaki has now supplied in the article. I now believe that the method is a rarely used but interesting assessment method that is sufficiently notable for a wikipedia article. It did not show up in my original search of psychinfo because the term did not appear in the title, abstract or keywords, only in the full text. To summarize: offbeat but valid. Nesbit 06:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlson-Sabelli et al. (1992) and Carlson-Sabelli, Sabelli, and Hale (1994) have criticized the traditional sociometric measurement for (a) focusing on choices and ignoring why choices are made, (b) treating opposites (choice versus rejection and indifference) as mutually exclusive categories or as the opposite ends of a continuum (i.e., love and hate toward the same person can coexist resulting in push and pull processes operating simultaneously), and (c) using a linear scale whereby choices are rank ordered from least to most. Carlson-Sabelli et al. (1994) described a sociodynamic approach that uses the traditional nomination procedure (with or without ranking) along with the measurement of opposite processes of attraction and repulsion via the "plane phase of opposites"--or less technically "the diamond of opposites"--toward a person, activity, or opinion (p. 162). The diamond of opposites can be used to gather data in writing or in action. To use it in action, draw a large diamond in the center of a room and ask group members to place themselves within the marked areas of the diamond in a location that best reflects the intensity of their combined positive and negative feelings toward a significant other.

In Carlson-Sabelli et al.'s (1994) scheme, the bottom vertex of the diamond represents indifferent, neutral, or zero feelings, and the top vertex represents contradictory, ambiguous feeling characterized by intense but opposite (equally positive and negative) feeling. Thus, the area within the diamond of opposites is divided into four quadrants: (a) bottom (weak feelings of both attraction and repulsion), (b) top (strong contradictory feelings of both attraction and repulsion), (c) left (attraction), and (d) right (repulsion) (see Figure 1).

According to Carlson-Sabelli et al. (1994), the diamond can be used to prepare interpersonal profiles for a variety of criteria such as harmony-conflict, approach-avoidance, and attraction-repulsion represented as opposite axes of separate diamonds. Respondents are asked to rank order their significant others in terms of how much time the respondent (a) wishes to spend with their significant others (ideal rank order) and (b) actually spends with their significant others (actual rank order). Next, they locate their significant others by marking points in each of the diamonds (harmony-conflict, attraction-repulsion, and approach-avoidance) first to indicate the actual rank order and second to indicate the ideal rank order. Connecting the dots within each diamond provides interpersonal profiles (for criteria of interest) for significant relationships, which can then be compared. Carlson-Sabelli et al. mentioned that their approach can be used in conjunction with the SNI (Treadwell et al., 1993) to determine social distances. (See Carlson-Sabelli et al., 1992, 1994, for more information on the mathematics of the sociodynamic approach.)

The article and quote considered in combination indicate a highly confused use of two continua to form two-dimensional space. I have explained why on Talk:Diamond_of_opposites. No citations indicate the 'diamond of opposites' has received any recognition in psychometric literature as a scaling method. I have removed it from psychometrics category. If it has sufficient notability as a method in psychodrama (and I have no comment on this), then it should be presented as that, not a scaling method in psychometrics. The fact that it was placed in the category of psychometrics suggests to me it should be deleted. Holon 11:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I placed it in the category of psychometrics because I thought it belonged there (referenced journals mention the category of sociometry - I tought its the same category). I don't know much about psychometrics, so if you say that its not used there, I have no objection to your removing of the category. Lakinekaki 16:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holon, you did not understand how responses are plotted. I added the picture in the article to make things more clear. Responses are added as vectors. Lakinekaki 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just found out that "Diamond of opposites" technique is included in the test for becoming psychodramatist in the US. It is used as sociometry measure. I think that this does make this entry notable enough for Wikipedia article and for inclusion in the scaling methods and psychometrics category (psychodrama after all deals with psychology!). Lakinekaki 19:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I previously removed it from the Educational psychology category because it has never been used in peer-reviewed educational psychology research. But editing the categories is a very different matter from deletion. Also, I'm not sure it is useful to debate the quality of the idea itself as a way to decide deletion (omigod that would wipe out most of the articles on pop culture!) -- rather, the wikipedian question seems to be whether the method is notable enough to warrant an article. Prefering to err on the side of inclusion, seeing that it has been used in peer-reviewed research, and hoping to rehabilitate Lakinekaki into a great wikipedian ;-) I am sticking with my keep vote. Lakinekaki, perhaps you should post an external link to the certification information you mention above if it's on the web. I'd suggest a compromise where Lakinekaki commits to not categorizing the article as psychometric and removes the psychometric links in "See also" to persuade Holon to change his vote. By the way, I think the article is substantially better now, and could benefit from further improvement. Nesbit 19:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Nesbit. So long as it's not represented as something it isn't, I have no problem with inclusion of this article. It should not be referred to as a scaling method or in the category of psychometrics without appropriate references. My reason for voting to delete is that it was unambiguously entered as a scaling method in the category of psychometrics, which creates serious doubt in my mind regarding knowledge of the subject matter. These doubts remain, but I'm quite happy to abstain from voting if your proposed compromise is satisfactory in Lakinekaki's mind (either that, or appropriate references are provided). Cheers. Holon 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said elsewhere, I exausted my modest knowledge on this subject. Dr. Sabelli told me she will read the article one of these days and improve it. I guess that she will provide references that are missing, and add/delete relevant links. Till then, take care, and please remove delete tag from the article. Lakinekaki
Actually do not delete tag, it will be good if she reads this discussion. Lakinekaki
  • Keep Well referenced topic Ruby 01:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mightymustangs[edit]

ad, nn site (5M+ alexa) Hirudo 18:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Sedman-smith[edit]

Delete. As far as I can tell, most of the content of this page is untrue (Google doesn't seem to back any of it up) and this is just a page made as a joke by some of his students. – drw25 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE
Please be aware that the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry allows for all comments made by new or anonymous contributors to be ignored. Please remember this is not a simple vote, but rather a discussion. If you wish the article kept, you should make logical arguments as to why the article should stay. Please add your votes to the bottom and sign them with ~~~~.
  • Delete. Name in quotes in google does show many races participated in by the subject, but not much else. Name with any of the claims ("the curry house", "Claudia Schiffer" etc.) return no results. Appears to be hoax with just enough true information in it to give semblance of legitimacy. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although File:Claudia Schiffer Guess 1.jpg's personal interpreter still not notable. —This user has left wikipedia 18:31 2006-02-05
  • Delete. Non-notable, ironic false vanity. --Kinu 18:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopefully the jokesters got their jollies before this is removed. interestingly, the reference to his performance of Rach3 with the Dallas S.O. is a strangely cultivated one to Stephen Hough. Eusebeus 19:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Keep the page! he is actually a concert pianist, i can get proof
  • Save This is Robin Sedman-smith, The running part is true, and i am a Concert Pianist,

However i was trained at the Royal Northern College, and performed rach 2 at the age of 17 with the Shrewsbury Symphony Orchestra, not the wildly exaggerated claims made by some of my students. I did help fund The Curry House, and own 40% equity in the business.

I even found that some of your student's claims were true; that's not the point, are you notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia? As the facts appear to fall out, I think not. Don't take that as an insult, neither am I or are most people. --Fuhghettaboutit 13:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Because the article is true and he really is noteable
  • Save I am a friend of Robin and know a lot of this information to be true (definately the part about his Curry House business)
  • Save You people have obviously never a tasted a true CurryHouse curry.
  • Save I've heard he actually has a hand in the making of the curries. But it's just Curryhouse folklore
  • Save I have eaten in his CurryHouse. It was a most enjoyable meal. I would like to congratulate Mr.Smith on making such good curries. I would be interested to know the ingrediants in his curries. Perhaps one day he could cook one for me at his house?
  • Save I, too, have had the pleasure of eating in his Curry House. However i was disappointed to find, when i went through to the kitchen to compliment the chef, that the real Smithy was not there. I've heard theories that he is actually just a myth. But I can have no qualms with Smithy, he sounds like a real nice guy.
  • Save SAVE SMITHY!!!
  • Save :D!
  • Save "Smithy" as he is known to us in the cross-country world, or The Smithster, if you will, has a huge reputation and is a legend in some parts of the world. For what reason would this page be deleted? I fail to see the logic in it.
  • Save Having forgotten about this page for a few days, it seems that

Robin has quite a following. Certainly he is an impressive force at running, i have seen his photo many times in the local news papers, and on saturday night i was treated to a magnificent performance of "The Symphony for Solo Piano" by C.VAlkan from the Smithster, he is one of the few pianists to master this composer, well up there with Marc-Andre Hamelin and John Ogdon in terms of tehnique and musicality, I really believe he is worthy of an article.

  • Save I have also have had the pleasure of eating in his Curry House, simply georgous curries. He is an amzing cross country runner having competed in all the major cross country championships throughout the UK, so what gives you the right to delete his article? Further, he is an a talented tiddlywinks player, currently running the school tiddlywinks club at Adams' Grammar School in Shropshire, where he teaches the German language. As a friend of Robin I disagree with the deletion of this page. I was also stood with the camera crew on the set when Robin performed his stunt double for Les Battersby off Coronation Street.
  • Strong Delete Vanity and its obvious that many of the save votes are done jokingly not fitting the matter of the etiquette of AfD--† Ðy§ep§ion †(Talk) 20:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lock-nets[edit]

Non-notable neologism or protologism. Google gives hits but can't find anything related to this interpretation. Weregerbil 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 15:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Sierra Academy[edit]

Delete - I have already wikified this yet it still looks like an advertisement. Adds nothing to Wikipedia. Dicdoc 18:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The original article omitted reasons for its notability - ranked 19th in the nation among public high schools and 1st in California - by Newsweek based on Challenge index - performance on AP tests, etc. This is better than most the public high schools having articles on Wikipedia. I've added this information and references to the article. —ERcheck @ 20:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable school in small-town backcountry California. FCYTravis 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and well-down to ER-Check for the rewrite. Meets our schools guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, established school. Kappa 03:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A330/A340[edit]

Delete. This page is an orphaned article, and there is no meaning with this page while there are already detail articles for Airbus A330 and Airbus A340 respectively. Spring Dennis 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ruby 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No merge, as all relevant comparative information is already at Airbus A330 and Airbus A340. --Kinu 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletebut The reality is that both aircraft are highly related. The -200/-300 models of both are exactly the same (including the wing) with the exception of the engines. They probably should be unified ultimately, but that would require a lot of work. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't merge - yes, they're related, but they still got totally different nomenclatures and ended up aimed at different markets. On the other hand, the 737 had three completely different generations of aircraft all called 737. FCYTravis 21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemonium Books and Games[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable book store that sounds like about two dozen book stores in my area alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong object. A prominent and influential retailer in a specialty market; the current name/incarnation of one of the earliest specialty retailers in the fantasy/sf/horror market, going back roughly 50 years. Monicasdude 19:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: First off, where are you getting that info? None of that is on the web site as far as I can tell. I see a mention of about 16 years on one page. Second, this is Boston, the oldest city in the nation (don't quote me on that) - 50 years old doesn't even get you a polite nod. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is yet another article in the Cambridge, Massachusetts category that fails to convey the notability of the retailer in question. Wikipedia is not a "city shopping guide"-type listing of stores which have no interest beyond that of the local community. Besides, Harvard Square already has such a listing in an acceptable format, and any information which is truly unique or interesting can be included with the respective item in the section on The Garage. --Kinu 19:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising and nonnotable--unless good verifiable convincing evidence of notability is provided prior to expiration of VfD. The way things are going, any independent bookseller might soon be notable, but we're not there yet, and Ticknor and Fields (the Old Corner Bookstore) this ain't. FWIW the Pandemonium website has been indexed by archive.org's wayback machine as far back to 2001. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing, with a reality check: a search of a database of the Boston Globe and Boston Herald for about the last twenty years for exact phrase "Pandemonium Books" gives ten hits, none of which are articles about the bookstore or mention it other than in passing, in lists of bookstores or retailers. Eight are book signing announcements; one is an article about a locally produced magazine, "New Genre," with Pandemonium mentioned at the end as one of five retailers selling it; one is in a long list of places selling First Night buttons. Compare 289 (!) hits on "Brattle Book Shop" (a redlink, you'll note). The most recent, "Downtown Crossing is Losing Its Essence," December 1, 2005, p. 6, laments the loss of local institutions but rejoices that "Thankfully, some venerable Downtown Crossing destination establishments still thrive. The jeweler E.B. Horn, the Brattle Book Shop, the newly renovated Paramount Theatre, Lambert's open-air fruit and flower stand, the pinhole camera-sized Bromfield Camera." "Brattle Book Shop" appears six times in headlines; "Brattle Book Shop's Kenneth Gloss to speak in Manchester," "From across America: Offers of Help for the Brattle Book Shop," "Brattle Book Shop Reopens." "WordsWorth books" (in Harvard Square) gets 623 hits, and a quick check suggests that most are about the store, not the poet, and "Kate's Mystery Books" gets 192. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not arguing that it's notable because of its status in the Boston-area market, but its status in the specialty fantasy/science fiction/horror market. It's a regular stop for notable authors on book tours, for example [43]. Here's a reference, from an author's blog, about the store existing, under a different name, in 1980 [44] (It's in the January 23, 2006 entry, just in case something pushes it off the front page). It goes back, probably under other names, even further, although I'd have to dig out some old magazines to find listings in their mail order book ads. It's been mentioned fairly regularly in Locus, the most significant trade magazine in the field. [45] (and that's just pages that have escaped periodic housecleaning). If there really are two dozen bookstores like this in anybody's area, I'd like to move there. Monicasdude 01:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey, what happened to "going back roughly 50 years"?! Now it goes back to 1980? Be fair and cross out that 50 years claim above --- sheesh. I was almost quasi-impressed there for a second. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nothing happened to "going back roughly 50 years"; that's just one of the older web references I've found so far. Web references aren't everything. It's well-known in its field; its activities have been frequently reported by the major trade magazine covering its field; and it hosts a relatively large number of notable-author events, indicating it's viewed as significant (especially for an independent bookstore) by publishers in the field. Hey, what happened to those "two dozen bookstores" in your area? I'm not sure there are two dozen bookstores this notable in Manhattan any more (which is pretty sad, but that's another story . . . .) Monicasdude 02:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Almost half the hits on this link are for things other than the bookstore. The actual hits are for book signings where about 20-50 other book stores are also listed - and none of them have articles except the standard mega-chains like Barnes & Noble. Dark Delicacies, Mysterious Galaxy, Adventures in Crime and Space... —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...and how about this link? 300 hits. Not great for Google. "Pandemonium" is too common a word to include it alone in Google searches. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now what's your argument? That an independent bookstore which has hosted scores, probably hundreds of signings by notable authors over the last few years isn't notable enough, and the only bookstores that deserve entries are the "standard mega-chains"? It's treated as a notable enterprise in its specialty field, by relevant publishers and authors, and by the major trade magazine covering its field. And that shows notability under Wikipedia criteria. That Wikipedia covers a particular field badly (as with your reference to possibly notable specialty retailers without articles) is hardly a reason to make its coverage worse. Monicasdude 03:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The links you yourself provided show that dozens of independent bookstores host book signings every day of every week. That means none of them are a notable enterprise even in their own specialty field. I need something to set this apart from what I'm guessing must be thousands of other bookstores. The reason all those other bookstores don't have articles is simple - every article would be the same! Just the name and location would be different. If you'd like to make a list of every such bookstore, that's another story (I think it would get Afd'ed as well...), but don't put the whole Wikipedia world to sleep by acting like each one of them is worth its own article. That would - as one clever guy said recently - turn Wikipedia into the Yellow Pages. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can't tell if you're being silly or malicious now. Arguing that a business can't be notable unless it's unique is so plainly contrary to Wikipedia policy that it's either bad faith or completely unreasonable. Let's try the argument out in a different context. "Dozens of actors appear in movies every day of every week. That means none of them are notable, even in their own field." Let's get busy; where do we find the SAG/AFTRA membership lists?! Monicasdude 04:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Huge difference. Every actor has a high degree of uniqueness. Do you think Silence of the Lambs would be unaffected if you swapped Jack Nicholson in for Anthony Hopkins? Of course not. Bookstores are cookie-cutter. Bookstore X is 95% the same as bookstore Y and 97% the same as bookstore Z - and quite often X, Y and Z are all on one stretch of road. How boring would it be if you just copied and pasted the same article from X to Y and then to Z - with only a sentence different? And there was nothing else you could think of to distinguish them? And then you did the same for the other 40 bookstores in the city and then again for the 80 or so more in the rest of the county, etc., etc... Then, you have ---- the Yellow Pages. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Every actor has a high degree of uniqueness"? That's ridiculous. You want to take a personal position that bookstores can't be notable, fine, but it's a position a large number of authors disagree with, based on informed experience. Especially in specialty markets. You want Wikipedia to be a tool listing only successful corporate enterprises, fine, hold that opinion. But it's not, and shouldn't be, Wikipedia policy. Monicasdude 19:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what's ridiculous about that. Every actor has a different list of TV shows or movies or whatever. What is supposedly interesting about this bookstore? Do they have a different set of books? A unique brand of games? Have they made the news for anything except for being the 93rd stop on a book-signing tour for some author I've never heard of? I'm not saying bookstores can't be notable - just that this one isn't. I'm also not saying that only successful ones can be notable - just interesting ones. I figure either you have an affinity for this place because it's nearby - which means you want the article for vanity reasons - or you're a general inclusionist - which means there's no point in me arguing further. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Do they have a different set of books?" Yes, that's pretty much what specialty market retailers carry. Where the standard local bookstore might carry 1-2% of the genre titles in print, and a chain superstore 20-25%, a top-tier specialty market store would aim at carrying 75-90% of the available mass market titles. It would typically carry books from 50-150 small press/specialty publishers that aren't made available through general retail channels. At the market's peak, the top-tier SFFH stores would carry 100-250 independent magazines that didn't have general distribution; that number is smaller now, since many of them were subsidized enterprises that have moved to the web. They're typically run and staffed by people with expertise and influence in the specific field. "Have they made the news for anything except being the 93rd stop on a book-signing tour for some author I've never heard of?" Who really cares? Unless you can accurately claim that you're familiar with virtually all the significant authors in the world, you're just declaring that Wikipedia promotes aggressive ignorance, and that's just bad policy. Monicasdude 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a bit into Harvard Square with a note to move it to Central Square in March. This is a rather notable business in its field, but not widely enough covered to merit its own article. Barno 20:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I wouldn't object to merge. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:No objection to redirect to Harvard Square and brief mention there. No "merge," please, if that implies merging much of the present content. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude Lyo 00:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just a shop, there's nothing notable about it outside of Cambridge (although I do love Pandemonium and make a point of going there whenever I stop by Harvard). Perhaps merge it into Harvard Square. Ashibaka tock 02:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. - Mailer Diablo 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mention at Harvard Square is sufficient, but should be unlinked if the AfD ends in deletion.--Isotope23 19:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (see "epitome of uselessness" -- but maybe it can be re-written in a better fashion). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:07, Feb. 12, 2006

Myway.com[edit]

This is an advertisement. Delete it. - CorbinSimpson 19:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: A1. Very short article providing no context to allow expansion. That aside, subject is definitely non-notable. --Kinu 19:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - purely an ad for a website. Interestingly, the given URL does not provide a game site, but rather a "search" page. —ERcheck @ 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Article was originally badly wrote, I've given it a quick rewrite so that it makes sense and describes the site properly. Clearly meets WP:WEB as it has an Alexa ranking of 118. [47]. Englishrose 22:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Changed vote to merge with My Way (web portal). Englishrose 23:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is already My Way (web portal). Merge your article if you desire, or let AfD decide. Oh, and you should reread WP:WEB. Alexa scores, due to heavy systemic bias in the way that they measure traffic, are completely worthless and are not specifically acceptable by themselves as proof of notability. - CorbinSimpson 22:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calm down, I didn't know there was a My Way (web portal) article. Anyhow, an alexa score that is so high it makes 118 shows that it gets a high amount of traffic amonst window users with Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer which in itself makes the MySpace.com notable. Englishrose 23:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Simpson. --Aaron 22:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind. Delete both Myway.com and My Way (web portal). The site does appear to have high traffic, but both articles as they stand are the epitome of uselessness. --Aaron 22:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I definitely wouldn't call them useless. If we based wikipedia articles on what one person thinks is useful to them then they'd be very few articles. This could be useful for people wanting to research into Internet Portals and successful internet sites. Englishrose 23:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. This is not Wikisource material since its's not an original source text. The argument for keeping is not particularly convincing, particularly the request for expert-only additions. -Splashtalk 00:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons of history[edit]

Delete. At best, this is original research. By its nature this can never be more than pure opinion. JDoorjam Talk 19:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unencyclopedic opinion masquerading (unsuccessfully) as an article. --Kinu 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least long enough to give the article a chance. Please note the embedded request that additions to the article consist entirely of quotes from established historians. I only put in a few items off the top of my head to get things started. Those would, naturally, be taken out as quotations from historians were added. Rick Norwood 23:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belongs in Wikiquote (if anywhere), not in Wikipedia. —Sesel 23:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to jury rig. W.marsh 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto engineering[edit]

Delete. This is a non-encyclopedic neologism. JDoorjam Talk 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into jury rig — same concept. —Keenan Pepper 19:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to/with jury rig. Apparently this term does pop up via a search and on Urban Dictionary, so it might be worth keeping and pointing to an article of a more encyclopedic nature. --Kinu 20:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to/with jury rig. -feydey 13:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or cut and paste to "Urban Dictonary" site...Mike McGregor (Can) 01:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 User:Tregoweth.--Alhutch 20:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elias stimac[edit]

Vanity page, less than 400 Google hits. --Last Avenue 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:VSCA. An AOL e-mail address? Come on. --Kinu 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unanimous delete, ignoring the joke vote. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countervandal[edit]

No relevant information except self reference →AzaToth 20:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. At the least, a non-notable neologism. --Kinu 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism and (at best) unencyclopedic Wikipedia insider jargon. MCB 07:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The evolution of language must be proliferated - isn't that a goal of the WikiFactus project? The Fish 21:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ASR. Stifle 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, if thought sensible, transwiki to Wiktionary. There is already a vandal definition in Wiktionary, so probably delete. haz (user talk)e 14:22, 9 February 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 19:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghonenutunspace[edit]

Delete. According to a google search, this word doesn't exist. Xyzzyplugh 20:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete without prejudice. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The West Kept Secret[edit]

A yet-unpublished debut album. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Denni ☯ 20:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP not a crystal ball etc. Ruby 02:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, without prejudice to recreation after release. Stifle 21:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Essexmutant 05:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete --BorgQueen 22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marazm[edit]

Delete. Not an english word, no reason for this redirect. Xyzzyplugh 20:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: G1 and/or A1. It is patent nonsense, and there is no context for expansion. --Kinu 21:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin_Cheney[edit]

Delete. Vanity redirect page, if that's the right term for this. Xyzzyplugh 21:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A1 and/or A7. No context; notability of individual not asserted. Probably doesn't meet WP:BIO anyway. --Kinu 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technoligion, Econoligion, Technoligion/Econoligion[edit]

Delete as neologisms. Technoligion gets 12 hits on Google (mostly trivial), Econoligion gets none. ran (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Rory096 21:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. --Kinu 21:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dr Debug (Talk) 22:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, non-notable neologisms, i.e. protologisms. Stifle 21:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete while misplaced, per WP:SNOW I do not believe it would ever survive the process at RfD and would be a needless use of resources. Without prejudice though of course, should someone want to recreate this and try RfD. W.marsh 19:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snarfoogle[edit]

Delete. Nonsense word. Xyzzyplugh 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. Best case scenario, it's a non-notable and unverifiable neologism. --Kinu 21:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate is misplaced. It belongs at redirects for deletion. Stifle 21:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Just adding this in an attempt to de-confuseify bots and scripts. -Splashtalk 19:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Litefantastic Files[edit]

Time to come clean. I've been here since 2003, and not all my contributions have been... stellar. All the stuff I actually made up was either discovered or turned in by me when I reformed. However, there are still a lot of things I think probably deserve to be evaluated as to whether or not they deserve to live. They are organized alphabetically; articles accompanied by an asterisk have already been to the VfD before, but survived.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - I'm putting the result up here to avoid confusing bots and scripts. -Splashtalk 19:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collier Motors[edit]

Case for: Historical trivia
Case against: It's an abandoned car lot.
Votes:

Suggest folding to AMC as sortof a "dying gasp" like alot of articels on dying entities like to have. 68.39.174.238 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clicked some of the links and even as a non American it interested me. I think an article is overkill, but I'd suggest at least adding the links to the AMC article if not a paragraph or 2 per User:68.39.174.238 e.g. in a Trivia section. Delete the main article though. --kingboyk 00:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, marginally notable. Kappa 03:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think a merge is called for here. -- JJay 21:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, interesting cultural and automotive artifact TGC55 04:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep we have articles on wierder topics than abandoned car lots. Savidan 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I think it is useful information, but not useful enough to have its own page. jgera5 00:14, 18 February 2006. (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loomis Village[edit]

Case for: A retirement community, and Wikipedia has a history of creating articles for them.
Case against: May just not be significant enough.
Votes:

  • Delete - completely non-notable. —ERcheck @ 23:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add an AFD tag. Not notable, poor article. --kingboyk 00:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional people who lived more than once[edit]

Case for: Sort of interesting.
Case against: Listcruft.
Votes:

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 00:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Elvis impersonators*[edit]

Case for: Information originally compiled here; not available anywhere else.
Case against: Transcends listcruft; it's more like intelectual kleptomania.
Votes:


  • Userfy or BJAODN. That's topic is too good to throw out. It has to be kept somewhere. Dr Debug (Talk) 23:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Additionally, it is a list of interest to very few people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Dr Debug. Might be a good idea to add an AFD tag since a deletion concensus might arise. --kingboyk 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, doesn't require original research, and is of interest to many. Kappa 03:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Elvis impersonator. Valid, significant, and interesting information, but there doesn't seem to be enough of it to justify a distinct page, so simply make it a section of the general "Elvis impersonator" article. Win-win. -Silence 03:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep excellent list.  Grue  16:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Probably is a merge candidate, but that can be worked out elsewhere. -Splashtalk 00:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of books to which Stephen King has written an introduction[edit]

Case for: Semi-useful.
Case against: Really not.
Votes:

  • Weak keep I suppose this would be okay for King completists Ruby 22:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it into Stephen King after the list of his books. --Bduke 23:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Stephen King. feydey 16:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useless list, slight merge to Stephen King. Stifle 21:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Stephen King, although that article is growing quickly or perhaps an article on Non-fiction writing by King. This list in question is intersting (I recently expanded it by 8 titles) only in that it shows an element of King's writing beyond the "horror" that he is known for. I'd vote (and participate in) an article dedicated to King's non-fiction writing (which is nearly twice as prolific as his fiction). This could include lists of subject headings for his Entertainment Weekly column, reviews, numerous articles in magazines such as GQ, Playboy, TV Guide, etc. Although, just how valuable are endless lists? LACameraman 07:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't merge. Kappa 03:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 don't see the case for merging information admittedly made up. -Splashtalk 00:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple incarnations[edit]

Case for: Unfortunately, there really isn't one.
Case against: Good intentions here, I promise you, but pointless.
Votes:

  • Keep. With cloning, time travel and other plot devices causing this in increasing numbers in fiction (Inu Yasha, Back to the Future, and The One immediately come to mind) this is noteworthy in terms of speculative fiction and creative writing.--み使い Mitsukai 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Merge with Doppelgänger. I did some digging, and a term does exist for this: "temporal doppelganger", as listed here. The information could be used to expand that section of the article, which is more of a list than an explanation.--み使い Mitsukai 05:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support this idea, standing by my 'new name for old idea' confession. I suggest the information part of this be moved to Doppelganger, and the list part of it just be thrown out. -Litefantastic 00:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: As part of my 'come clean' policy, I think you should all know that I made this term up. This was after the period where I actively made terms up - in this case, I saw trying to find a term for any existing phenominon - but it is still a neologism. -Litefantastic 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. --kingboyk 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy, original research neologism. -Silence 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 BOTH. -Splashtalk 00:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of real people appearing in fictional context*, and List of mythical and religious beings appearing in fictional context[edit]

Case for: The one for real people, at least, is sort of useful.
Case against: Collapsing under its own weight.
Votes:

  • Keep, I like it, up to par with that article about the occurrences of the word 'fuck' in movies. But then again, that's just my stand on semi-trivial knowledge :) Obli (Talk) 22:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. I'm not a fan of listcruft, but these ones are actually useful. 23skidoo 05:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. They have their uses, more so than, say, List of guys named Bob with only one eye who appeared in more than one movie filmed in Tibet or other rampant listcruft around here.--み使い Mitsukai 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - arguably useful. I've added someone to it also. Worth keep an eye on it though to see if it expands out of control. Essexmutant 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are useful. Why delete? (Ibaranoff24 01:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong keep "List of real people appearing in fictional context", Weak keep "List of mythical and religious beings appearing in fictional context" (which is much, much lower-quality and less interesting, but still has tons of potential if future editors spiff it up). No justification for deletion; "too long" is not a reason, in itself, to completely eliminate a page, and it confuses me that you'd list these with so many much less interesting and valuable pages. There are countless ways to combat excessive length, like subdividing alphabetically, or by work of fiction (i.e. "List of real people appearing in novels", "List of real people appearing in fictional television series", etc.!). -Silence 02:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Conclusion[edit]

I'm big on lists, and some of them (such as List of fictional U.S. Presidents) have actually turned out pretty well. Let it be said that I'm trying, anyway. -Litefantastic 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for 'coming clean'. What a good idea! You ought to add AFD tags to any which might be controversial, or to all of them. You can adjust the link in the tags to point here. Subst the tag, save the article, then edit the link to the deletion debate. --kingboyk 00:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added tags to them all (save for one which Dr Debug had already done). --kingboyk 06:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -Litefantastic 13:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ... and someone fixed it. Adrian Lamo ·· 23:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crack addict[edit]

someone moved police officer to the crack addict article.


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subordinating conjunctions[edit]

WP:NOT a list. --M@thwiz2020 21:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Contact (HL mod)[edit]

Article is about an unfinished Half Life mod with no release date: non-notable and crystal-ballish both. - squibix(talk) 21:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blomic[edit]

non-notable definition Avi 21:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable portmanteau. --Kinu 21:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable and unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 21:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deal with as copyvio the current version was a cut and paste from their website. W.marsh 19:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Hamelin[edit]

Is this about Sonica or Ted. Sonica MAY be notable, perhaps, with the downloads. This article shows little notability for Ted. Avi 21:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Hamelin Jr. hails from Vancouver and is a ten year veteran of the industry. Ted brings a tremendous amount of experience to Sonica. A seasoned producer with a major label background and years of roadwork sharing bills with the likes of Our Lady Peace, Tragically Hip, Tripping Daisy etc; Ted was previously nominated for "PRODUCER OF THE YEAR" up against heavyweights Bruce Fairburn, Bob Rock and Stephen Drake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidgold (talk • contribs)

Delete. There are 18 google hits for Ted Hamelin. It is clear that he wrote a number of songs, however I doubt whether they will make him notable enough even though is probably a good songwriter/producer and a valid asset to a band. The article is mainly about Sonica and that band might be notable, but maybe you need to check Wikipedia:Notability (music). Dr Debug (Talk) 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC and lack of sources. Stifle 21:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete

Ted Hamelin wrote songs which have compiled over 250,000 downloads. The song "SOS" pushed Lincoln Park out of the #1 spot on the power pop top 100 in the world on mp3.com. All verified. There have been numerous Canadian television shows documenting this. Ted Hamelin was also nominated for producer of the year for producing the Tone cd "Brand New Lunatic". This indie cd broke the top 100 chart in Canada and was in major rotation on Toronto's #1 modern rock station the Edge. He was up against Bruce Fairburn who produced AC/DC, Bon Jovi, Motley Crue etc. Do Not Delete per WP:MUSIC looking at qualifications qualifies in atleast 3 areas. User: Calgaryman 10:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as notable enough in his field. Sanders25 15:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. Kappa 03:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. User:Manfred101 17:04, 9 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. – Alphax τεχ 01:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1736 in Canada[edit]

This page has no actual content. freestylefrappe 01:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was sp as per CSD G4: repost. --M@thwiz2020 21:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1736 in Canada[edit]

No content - just a template. --M@thwiz2020 21:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete After noticing it was a repost, I speedied it instead. --M@thwiz2020 21:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin and the Audience[edit]

Appears to fail WP:Music. Google search for "'colin and the audience' -wikipedia" produces "about 86" results, but at least 2 of the first 10 seem to have been created by the person himself, and 2 more appear unrelated to the artist mentioned, Colin Veit, who does not have a Wikipedia article. Delete. Joel7687 22:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and also looks like vanity. --Kinu 22:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:VSCA, or at least part thereof. Stifle 21:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 19:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cariblist.com[edit]

I don't know what counts as reliable sources in Barbados that I can use to verify this article or its notability. I hereby ask the community to decide.-- Perfecto 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (pending further research by nom). At the moment, despite the comments on the talk page and attempts by the author to edit it, it still reeks of advertising. --Kinu 22:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Stifle 21:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Well I don't know what else to do. Working in an environment where we are not first world with numerous (often spurious) media sources and due to the local newspapers losing their archives, there is nothing else I can attempt to establish reliable sources for this article. In a final attempt I refer you back to google select the cached copy of number 1 result An article about cariblist.com from 2002. Have it your way, community decide!!Deepers 12:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, being the #1 google hit for barbados real estate established notability. Kappa 03:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.SoothingR 21:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry MacAlmon[edit]

A google for "I sing praises" and McAlmon yields around 10 unique hits, the writer about 150, mostly adverts for other songs. No evidence to support claims of "top 40 Christian songs" (in the UK Graham Kendrick is I think the only living writer to make the top 40 Christian sings, but I could be wrong there). Publisher is redlinked, none of the supposed modern hymnals in which it's included are referenced. I call WP:HOLE. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. You may not have heard of him but unfortunately citing a page you just dreamed up, i.e. WP:Hole, is not good enough for me. Guess what. Amazon has heard of him because they are selling around 8 of his albums [49]. 'Sony' has heard of him because that's the label he records for. I call WP:please do some research. -- JJay 16:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious if not Speedy Keep. Has at least 7 albums out on that obscure little record label Sony. Has more solo albums than Christina Aguilera and Gwen Stefani combined, a point at least as convincing as WP:HOLE. By the way, that Google search came out badly because the searcher spelled the subject's name wrong! Monicasdude 23:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's disappointing to see that "delete because I haven't heard of it" has become official deletionist reasoning. Kappa 23:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 complete bollocks, due to both content and creator's past history. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Portability of Cheese[edit]

Book not found by google nor on amazon.com. Another fine contribution from persistent fiction writer Paulo Fontaine (talk contribs) Weregerbil 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Saks[edit]

Unverifiable, doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC. See article's talk page for an extensive discussion. Vary | Talk 22:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Verification of any information is provided only on David Saks' own webpages, i.e., there is no independent corroboration. - Jersyko talk 01:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable due to lack of references. I'm open to changing this if somebody cites some reliable sources. Stifle 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Authoritative sources have not been found (despite a great effort in searching for relevant information online) to substantiate claims in this article. - Dozenist talk 04:07, 7 February 2006
  • Do Not Delete., Verification has been provided that Mr. Saks is the composer of "One Last Bridge" All you need do is look in the archives of The Commercial Appeal (online) instead of Google. Reference 1990 archives.--70.248.228.85 19:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)New User[reply]

Verification Provided

  • Do Not Delete.
  • If you take the time to visit Mr.Saks' webpages at DavidSaks.Com, in addition to the letterhead from Graceland on his home page declaring it the first cover, you will see links in the upper right corner of the home page that direct the visitor to a page called "APS Letters". You will find on this page the following :
  • 1.The Cover of the March 1993 edition of the American Philatelist referring to the editorial written by Mr. Saks which followed the first day event at Graceland.
  • 2.A letter of congratulations from the American Philatelist editor, Bill Welch congratulating Mr. Saks for "snagging number one" and "getting his retirement fund off to good start".
  • 3.A copy of the honorarium check presented to Mr. Saks by the American Philatelic Society for his guest editorial.
  • Other photos on this page are of Mr.Saks with the first day cover at Graceland and a publicity photo in a U.S.P.S. postal truck.

On the page link entitled "FDC Details" you will find:

  • 1.A reproduction of the cover including the signatures of Priscilla Presley and other dignitaries who attended the event, including the Mayor of Shelby County, Sam Phillips and the artist who designed the stamp, Mark Stutzman.
  • 2.The reverse of the cover signed by Graceland CEO Jack Soden and other dignitaries.
  • 3.Examples of the cancellation verifying the cancellation date.
  • 4.The reverse side signed by Frank P.Brennan Jr.,General Manager of the Media Relations Division of The United States Postal Service, Bill McAllister, the Philatelic Writer for The Washington Post, and Mark McEwen, anchorman of CBS This Morning.

The Graceland Gate Cancellation adorns the reverse in addition to the circular date stamp of Jan 8,1993,including the Graceland zip code,38101 insuring the cancellation date.

  • 5.The second letter of authenticity authorized by Graceland manager Debby Johnson and signed by Graceland merchandising manager the late Laura Ferguson.
  • 6.A copy of Mr.Saks' Guest Editorial The American Philatelist March 1993.
  • 7.Mr.Saks Editorial 2nd page.

On the "Testimonials" page you will find:

  • 1.The article by John Dunn,Editor of Mekeel's Stamp Weekly Proclaiming Mr.Saks' Elvis Presley First Day Cover "One in a Million" February 12,1993, approximatley one month following the event.
  • 2.A link to Mr.Saks' biography.

As for sources on the songs and notability, Mr.Saks has met the criterion based on the fact that:

  • 1.Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award,i.e.,Official Song of Memphis.
  • 2.Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above., ie, the late Mr.Ruble, as noted on the Fast Mothers site and by the city council resolution.

In addition, a collection of works for the piano are made available on Mr.Saks site. The Fast Mothers site discusses the awards presented Mr.Ruble. In the City Council resolution Mr. Ruble is praised along with Mr.Saks for giving the city of Memphis,"A wonderful celebration of itself." Mr.Saks is more than qualified to be represented, and certainly worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. As to other details in the article, you should edit as you find appropriate, regards verification of his education and, among other items, his musicianship. As I am new to the forum (five days), I apologize if my corrections and actions have been misunderstood and out of keeping with protocol. I can only learn as I progress. Please consider allowing Mr.Saks the courtesy of this addition in this excellent forum. I hope that his honor will be upheld in any event.(Reneec 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment, I have posted a checkuser request to ensure that there is no sockpuppetry occuring in this afd vote. - Jersyko talk 19:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite many requests for verification, User:Reneec has refused to do so. As such, any assertions made in this article cannot be accepted at face value, leaving the voter no other choice than to conclude that the subject does not meet notability standards. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness to Mr. Saks and User:Reneec, verification has been provided on the "Talk Memphis" page. As a result, the subject meets the notability standards.:::--70.248.228.85 02:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Reneec has not provided verification on the Talk:Memphis page. She still has not given us any proof other than Mr. Saks's own webpage. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the anon is referring to a story in a Memphis paper, Commercial Appeal, posted in a few places by one of the several anons who have taken an interest in Mr. Saks's article. [50] The article does confirm that Mr. Saks wrote a song called "One Last Bridge", which was apparently made Memphis's official song of the year for 1990. However, that alone does not seem to be enough for Mr. Saks to pass WP:MUSIC. -- Vary | Talk 03:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vary's nom and subsequent research Ruby 03:49, 11 February 2006

Obviously these viewers did not read the "Talk Memphis" page thoroughly. Legitimate articles have been located in the Commercial Appeal archives written by verifiable sources pertaining to Mr. Saks. It is not necessary for Reneec to provide verification on the "Talk Memphis" page as it has been sufficiently provided.--70.248.228.85 05:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the "legitmate articles" referred to are the previously mentioned article about the 1990 song One Last Bridge and an article about Mr. Saks' stamp collection. - Jersyko talk 05:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The complete article on Mr. Saks's stamps collection makes reference to his two songs that were named Official Songs of memphis in 1990 and 1991 by the Memphis City Council. Again it had to be pointed out to these viewers where to look for verification--70.248.228.85 05:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for two things here - verifiability of claims and proof of notability. Information must be verifiable to remain in a wikipedia article. The subject must be notable in order for the article to remain on Wikipedia. What remains of the article is more or less verified - although the source is not the move authoritative - but that does not make the subject notable. Please see WP:MUSIC for more information. -- Vary | Talk 05:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability of claims and notability have been adequately provided. The subject of "Official Songs of Memphis" is notable. It has been verified that Mr. Saks has received not one but two of these distinctive awards by the Memphis City Council.--70.248.228.85 06:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen any verification for "In Memphis". Could you please provide a link that shows that portion of the article? Also, even with a citation for the second song, I'm not sure that having two songs made official songs of the year for Memphis meets the requirements in WP:MUSIC, especially considering how difficult it has proven to find references to this award. If it were so prestigious, surely there would be more mentions of it somewhere? -- Vary | Talk 06:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to assist people in finding elusive answers that aren't known. Without the questions for these answers, there would be no need for encylopedias or Wikipedia. Adequate links and verification have been provided.--70.248.228.85 15:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selector calculus[edit]

Completely uncritical article on alleged mathematical background for a cranky topic called Heim theory. See talk page for various comments to the effect that there is no such topic known in mathematics, and the unmotivated claims made without proof in the article run counter to well-known mathematical knowledge. The existing article on Heim theory seems adequate without littering the WP with a half dozen articles on subtopics which are not part of mainstream knowledge. This is an encyclopedia and it should focus on mainstream knowledge, not attempt to give exhaustive descriptions of every crank theory which has ever been proposed! CH 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you call this a cranky theory. Heim was known to Heisenberg and worked with Jourdan and Von Weizacker. Just becuase he was somewhat eccentric in eschewing the normal academic processes in favour of a hermetic existence does not give you the right to label him with repulsive epithets such as 'crank' - he was removed from that category in Wikipedia long ago. Familiarise yourself with the maths before shooting off your mouth like this.--hughey 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - junk William M. Connolley 22:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By analogy there is a "proof" that 0.999... = 1.000 that also involves cancelling infinities, but it has a certain instructive utility and it is not rejected as "junk" mathematics. Ruby 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that the proof that 0.999... = 1.000 is accepted by the mathematical community and mentioned in many text books, while selector calculus is not accepted and not mentioned in the mathematics literature. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was originaly going to vote merge into Heim theory. But then I came across this New Scientist article [51], so it seems like Heim's work is not quite as cranky as nominator makes out. --Salix alba (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On reflection I'd be happy with a merge. Easy either way. --Salix alba (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know what's going on with the Heim business, but there is no mathematical subject of selector calculus AFAIK nor do the standard mathematical resources such as MathSciNet mention it. The article doesn't even make clear what "selector calculus" is. Given its lack of references and general lack of clarity, I fear this article might be falling into the original research category. I think we should focus on these issues, rather than confuse the matter by in effect merging this discussion with the Heim theory discussion. --C S (Talk) 11:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Among other problems, one is that this article doesn't define what selector calculus is. Thus, there is no way to validate it, or to discuss its technical merits, or to apply it in any real-life calculation. linas 14:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Chan-Ho. Unverifiable. Since the article mentions language difficulties, I also looked through Zentralblatt MATH to cover the German literature, but with no success. The New Scientist article does not mention selector calculus. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to be part of Heim's production. As the article says, it is supposed to be something like tensor calculus but without infinitesimals or limits tending to 0. Apparently it is covered in Part III (pages 99-172) of "Elementarstrukturen der Materie 1: Einheitliche strukturelle Quantenfeldtheorie der Materie und Gravitation" by Heim, published in 1978/1980 and a second edition in 1989.--Henrygb 01:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's good that a reference has been provided, but the problems with the article remains. Additionally, the reference is good if someone were able to understand it and write an article based on it, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. It still doesn't explain what selector calculus is, although it says it's "something like" something else and makes an unsubstantiated claim that it is something very near tensor calculus. The only other info in the article is rather muddled and nonsensical:

"The approach differs from conventional differential calculus which does not place a finite lower bound on infinitesimals. In selector calculus, the limit of Riemann sums taken to infinity has no physical interpretation, as the smallest unit of measure is a metron, rather than infinitesimal."

Since I know "conventional differential calculus", I can say this comparison is wrong as it shows a misunderstanding of calculus. The article also says, "See Heim theory for details." Well, if the article on selector calculus refers to another article for an explanation of what selector calculus is, what's the point of having such an article? Since all the details are apparently in the Heim theory article anyway, a merge would appear pointless; I'm sticking with my 'delete' vote. --C S (Talk) 18:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As someone has added the above reference to the article, I think we should know how you got that reference and why you think the selector calculus is "apparently" covered in it. There's an issue of verifiability here, besides the other issues that have been mentioned. (Note: I have removed the reference from the article as I don't believe at this point that the editor had actually used the reference to verify the information) --C S (Talk) 10:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This might be from this page (the German version is better if you can read it), which says: "Accordingly, a whole chapter in [1] is devoted to the development of a difference calculus considering the finite area [the metron]. This enables any differential expression to be metronized." However, the basic problem remains: the article is not encyclopaedic because it does not attempt to define selector calculus, and it also seems to be not notable: it is not clear whether the calculus has been used by anybody but Buckhard Heim himself, and even if it has, nobody except for the handful of people working on Heim theory have used it. So, I remain of the opinion that the article should be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Based on Jitse Niesen's comment above, would it be a satisfactory alternative to merge the article with the existing articles related to Heim? Perhaps not notable in and of itself, but since it shows up in Heim theory, perhaps this would be a better alternative. I would not want to lose this content - it is not written very well compared to other articles, but surely if someone had the time to look at it, they could exapand the material. --HappyCamper 14:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kogut[edit]

Article was orriginaly proposed for deletion (prod) with reason: "Unverifiable programming language that also seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE;". I object to prod as unverifiabiliti is not an issue. There is plenty of sources. Programming language is apparently work of a student of Institute of Informatics, Warsaw University Mr. Kowalczyk. He also wrote paper [52] about this language. On the other hand I checked database of ACM and it contains no mentions about the subject. Kogut is an experimental language. I am not sure whether it does not fail under no primary research policy. Jan Smolik 22:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep In Mar 2005 alone it was downloaded from sourceforge 8,311 times [53], thus exceeding the 5,000 user threshold of WP:SOFTWARE Ruby 22:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cited a downloads graph that everyone needs to see. --Perfecto 22:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think that 8,000 times alone is within WP:SOFTWARE, because that's about a core membership of 5,000 people for a mailinglist and 8,000 downloads is very small. Also the language is very much in development and not even at version 1.0 yet. It first needs to establish itself as a viable language and it appears to be still at the development stage. Changed to Weak Delete Dr Debug (Talk) 22:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I only know this language because it's author posts on news:comp.lang.lisp, but still...  Grue  16:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless actual use by someone else is shown. The downloads are not very reliable measure - I throw away 95% of what I download. Mail-list looks like better indicator: 1 message during several last months. Otherwise Mr. Kowalczyk is very active member of several newsgroups like comp.lang.functional: that how I heard about the language. (I downloaded it, took a brief look and decided it is not for me.) Pavel Vozenilek 02:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pavel. Stifle 17:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; those who support a merge can be bold and do it themselves. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do bears shit in the woods[edit]

Unencyclopedic nonsense Kerowyn 22:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Next we will have an article titled "Would a cow lick Lot's wife?" Ruby 22:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN Sceptre (Talk) 23:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and weak BJAODN per Sceptre. --Kinu 23:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's not speedyable patent nonsense, and it tries to make a case for being a meme of communication. It's actually one of the most common and widespread ones in the USA. I'm almost split three-way among weak keep, weak delete, and weak BJAODN. Not very encyclopedic, but I'm pleased to count this among the many topics I've worked on in WP. <grin> Barno 23:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not nonsense at all, it is a common idiomatic expression in North American English (perhaps some voters above are unaware of this). It is not a pure dictionary definition either, because it would be interesting to discuss its origin, and how it came to be the canonical example in North American English of an obvious question whose answer is "yes" (another variant of which is "Is the Pope Catholic"). -- Curps 23:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as slang definition. If kept, I would move to Does a bear shit in the woods. bikeable (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rhetorical question. Redirects are cheap, and this is a very common expression and potential search term. Is the Pope Catholic? (with a question mark) already redirects there, and there's a short list of idiomatic expressions like this already there. None of the content is worth merging. ×Meegs 09:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Rhetorical question. Stifle 21:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Rhetorical question per Stifle, and BJAODN it. "Did the 3 bears shit in the woods? Is humpty dumpty fat? Does the pope wear a funny hat? Is wrestling fixed?" (Carter USM). --kingboyk 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 18:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maxxx[edit]

Max is a character in some of the Bomberman series. Article title is mis-spelled, and Bomberman already contains more substantial information on Max. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-05 23:21Z

  • Delete per nom. In a show of good faith, I have added a listing for this Max at Max (disambiguation). --Kinu 23:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Bomberman. Stifle 21:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Maxxx an alternate spelling for Max in Bomberman? (I don't see any indication of such) —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-06 23:49Z


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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immatain[edit]

Blatant advertisement and spam. King of Hearts | (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC) WITHDRAWN per re-write by Ruby. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • eteleD .mon rep sA Obli (Talk) 23:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Nevermind as per things said below Obli (Talk) 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article's author/primary editor also had deleted the AfD; I have reinserted it and will make a note on their talk page. --Kinu 23:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Ruby's rewrite. Now that's much better. --Kinu 06:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do not delete stubs about real towns Ruby 02:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewritten version by Ruby. bikeable (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep stubs about real towns, especially when rewritten. Kusma (討論) 04:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (note it should be on WP:RFD but since it's here, we'll handle it) enochlau (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samio[edit]

Delete. Nonsense, not an english word. Xyzzyplugh 23:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If Samio is in fact a person's name, then it is likely an attack page. If a future commenter seconds this notion, I would move to speedy delete: A6 it. --Kinu 23:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per the rarely invoked CSD:R3. Stifle 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This should not even be here anyway, redirects for deletion is down the hall, third door on the right. Stifle 21:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hectoriad[edit]

Delete — Fails WP:NOT. Page is either a hoax or original thought of some type. No references given, no Google hits.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unverifiable. Second the assertion that this is a hoax; tagged as such. --Kinu 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not google (no googles at all for Hectoriad, Herophere the supposed pseudonym written under, one author name and the other barely has any hits). Hoax unless further evidence can be supplied. RJFJR 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my and RJFJR's googling results. feydey 16:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above.--み使い Mitsukai 02:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 18:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasik Wine Park, Nasik[edit]

Lack of context, not yet existent, lack of significance RJFJR 23:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: A1 for lack of context. No doubt this would be delete otherwise, of course. --Kinu 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is now an article about geography and the special status of a grape-growing region for economic development Ruby 02:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Nasik. utcursch | talk 03:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless credible references are found. There are a few wine parks around Nasik though. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't accept the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation as a credible reference what do you have in mind? Ruby 05:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reference does not point to a specific "Nasik Wine Park". A Godavari Wine Park and Krishna Wine Park do exist according to that source, but not a NWP. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read it again. I didn't come up with the figures in the article by guessing. Ruby 15:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I can't find the string "Nasik Wine Park" in the reference. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable and decent-sized wine park, merge also possible. Kappa 02:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mindmatrix 17:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gia bathory[edit]

Text of an interview with subject of article. May be a copyvio, but anyway it doesn't belong here. Wikipedia isn't for original sources. Anabanana459 23:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sounds like original research. --Last Avenue 23:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kinu 23:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete copyvio from [54] or maybe it was posted by the owner of that website, same difference. Ruby 01:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio source material. Kusma (討論) 05:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of diagramming software[edit]

Delete. Made redundnat by Category:Diagramming software. The few red-links seem non-notable, but could be moved to requested articles or to the cat page if needed. Karnesky 23:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Broanna-berry Smooooothies*[edit]

Trifecta: WP not recipe book, stuff made up in school, or advertising medium. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not worthy of BJAODN. --Kinu 23:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per nom, though we prefer hat trick to trifecta — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
    • Apologies, I was trying to make it intelligible to our Amerulan friends. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks - there's probably something there that would accomodate this after heavy cleanup. Otherwise delete.--み使い Mitsukai 20:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki Not a drink recipes book. Hamster Sandwich 15:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delicious, er, I mean, delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a brick-layer ... or, er, something. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jonathunder 21:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 13:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Element_X[edit]

Delete: Where to begin... this idea of an "element X" is simplistically extracted from a pattern of "four atoms fusing together" which is NOT how fusion works. Any element that big would be so unstable it would fly apart in an instant. EGGS 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm going to call bollocks on this one. --Kinu 00:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 00:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, without even the benefit of observational data (" if we follow the patern that has been set, four Einsteinium atoms would be fused together") Ruby 01:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Kinu. --Kerowyn 01:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to King Kong Escapes (no, seriously, Element X is a major plot device). 23skidoo 05:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per 23skidoo, otherwise delete. Solar fusion doesn't create elements heavier than iron, and this looks like original speculation anyway. Zetawoof 21:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/delete. The closest thing I can think of to this is neutronium, but that article freely states that its subject is primarily a concept from science fiction, and "Element X" is hardly an accepted synonym. Megane 04:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{T}{L} 12:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sevag Derderian[edit]

Does not seem to pass notabilty tests at Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Martyman-(talk) 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete, i have seen this artist's live performance, he is one of the most prominent armenian reliogus singers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.148.84 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Above anonymous user removed the AFD tag off the article. --Martyman-(talk) 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you going to delete this biography, if this singer was to be deleted then all other singers should be deleted!

  • Delete: nn Cate 14:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dont' Delete: This is a real singer, and a religous member of the Armenian Apostolic Church.


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Geogre Adrian Lamo ·· 04:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron kaufman[edit]

Does not seem to pass notabilty tests at Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Martyman-(talk) 23:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_5&oldid=1116878783"