Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 30 February 1 >

Purge server cache

January 31

[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 delete. Mailer Diablo 03:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catagory:kingdom of loathing

[edit]

Strong Delete Shameless promotion of website. I had originally nom'd for speedy. The article author removed the speedy tag (see history). Although I now realize this probably doesn't warrant a speedy, the tag should not have been removed by the author. Bugturd Talk 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Coffee

Robby White

[edit]

Delete, this has to be a hoax.--M@rēino 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da Games

[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Drdisque with the reason non-notable fanfic website hosted on free server, but websites cannot be speedied. No vote. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sternchat

[edit]

Delete as spam/advertisement. The article consists of nothing more than promoting the "hilarious" Sternchat.com. I have not checked for notability given the obvious advertising nature of the article, but if the article is drastically altered to remove all POV/promotional material (which would pretty much delete the article anyway) I might consider changing vote Bugturd Talk 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. The Land 11:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merritt Boat & Engine Works

[edit]

Delete as advertisement/spam. I initially nominated this for speedy, but I retracted it after more content was added. The additional content killed justification for speedy, but its still just an ad. Bugturd Talk 00:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to abstain in agreement with unsigned comment below. The article has definitely improved. --Bugturd Talk 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Changing vote back to delete since it appears that the article is to be a list as per WP:NOT comments below. --Bugturd Talk 01:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My response:
  • This is not an ad, they are not selling any thing. The article is about a famous classic manufacturer of sportfishing boats, best known for its work in the 50's and 60's. There are countless articles written about them, entire online discussion forums dedicated to discussing them with thousands of messages posted daily and hundreds of photographs, etc. The article is just getting started, you should not delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angusdavis (talk • contribs) 01:00 31 January 2006
  • Then you should you make that case in the article by writing an encyclopedia article, instead of (as it appears you are doing) creating a catalog of every boat Merritt has ever built. That level of detail WILL be deleted and condensed by subsequent editors, so you best not invest the time in doing so. For the moment keep -- as long as it doesn't degenerate into list of boatcruft ("The 1963 models, as opposed to the 1962 models, began using mahogany instead of teak for the cabin trim..."). --Calton | Talk 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Wikipedia is not a list. If the article turns into a "why Merritt is notable" (as Angusdavis purports it is), then keep. If it stays as a list, delete. --M@thwiz2020 01:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merritt Boat & Engine Works is a notable boat company. However, the current artical needs to be re-focused on the busness. (Signed: J.Smith) 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite, beacuse right now, it's borderline boatcruft, and a list. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 04:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. -ryan-d 12:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, send it for cleanup. It's pretty clear that there's some historical interest here; the article needs to be focused on that. -Ikkyu2 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no strong opinion either way on the inclusion of this article, but it needs a rewrite if it stays. As it stands the article is part list and part poorly written history. I'd take a crack at it, but I get sick on boats, so I've just added a cleanup tag.--Isotope23 18:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, BUT get rid of the list of boats, except for those which have some significance. Boats as far as I am aware, are just private possessions like cars. I bet you we couldn't find a single Wikipedia editor who would think that the encyclopaedia should contain a list of all car registration numbers with details of their first owner, even if we could find that information out. At risk of breaching WP:AGF, I have to ask, does the author have a commercial interest in this particular boatyard? How else would they know who bought each boat? Or are boats required to be registered in a public register under U.S. law? If they DO have a commerical connection and there is no such registration requirement, this seems like an unbelievable breach of commerical confidentiality. Rant rant rant. Sorry. SP-KP 20:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and, there are a number of Yachts which are individually notable out there in the world (due to manufacturer, owner, specific characteristics, history, design example of something, etc). Whether these particular yachts are sufficiently notable or not is an open question, but I suggest letting the article editors work that out over time. Standards will prevail. No reason to delete or apply premature chainsaw effort to the article. Georgewilliamherbert 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Data on boat ownership for boats that are or have been federally documented by the USCG is a matter of public record, so there is no confidentiality issue here. I am the author and I am an enthusiast of these boats as are many other folks. Feel free to delete the article or edit it as you see fit. In its defense, I will say that if magazine articles have been written about the history of these boats, tracking down each one, etc., it is silly to say it is not appropriate. For example, if Sinclair had built only 10 computers, would it not be appropriate to document the provenance of those computers, who owned them, how they were used, etc.? Anyway, it was just a quick attempt at an article. I came here after reading about the congressional staffers abusing the system and I decided to try for myself to create my first article by writing about something on which I had some very unique and deep knowledge. I agree the writing is poor and could be improved. The unique contribution I have made here is the research. Do with it what you will. --Angusdavis 01:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example, if Sinclair had built only 10 computers, would it not be appropriate to document the provenance of those computers, who owned them, how they were used, etc.? Nope. And you listed 25 boats, none of which seem particularly distinctive for reason of ownership, history, precedence, or technological or design advances; nor as exemplars of any trend in boatbuilding design evolution. What the list and its content (generally) is, to put it bluntly, trivia. (Besides, if Sinclair had built only 10 computers, I doubt they'd get an article here to begin with.)
    • This site is an encyclopedia, a digest of knowledge, acting as an introduction to or overview of subjects. Writers should put in the article what's most important, distinctive, and telling for the layman: "Why are those boats worthy of an article?" is the question that you should be answering in the article, and leave the fine-grained detail for the specialist magazines and coffee-table books. --Calton | Talk 07:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The debate here is about whether the article is to be deleted immediately, never to return. Debate on what the article should or should not contain should be directed to the article's talk page, as it is not relevant here. Ikkyu2 22:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Angusdavis presented his misconceptions regarding what is appropriate as an article period/full stop; I merely corrected them. If this bothers you, make use of that spacebar you can find at the bottom of your keyboard. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Pokémon items. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:50, Feb. 6, 2006

Potion (Pokémon)

[edit]

Game cruft, should be at least merged into b:Pokémon before deleting. kelvSYC 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Revolt of the Masses

[edit]

Delete as essay. I did not try to read it. I made it to the point where the author states that it is an essay and placed the nom Bugturd Talk 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable club. Capitalistroadster 10:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maine East Scholastic Bowl Team

[edit]

High school bowling team, not notable. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:05Z



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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspring (CMS)

[edit]

Non-notable software. Neglected article created by 24.11.91.246 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:06Z


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, nominator wants it withdrawn, no votes to delete. - Bobet 16:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Finale (Everybody Loves Raymond)

[edit]

Delete. Only episode for Everybody Loves Raymond series with a page; should be merged with List of Everybody Loves Raymond episodes (Seasons 5-9) Kinu 01:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... didn't put 2 and 2 together. This should obviously be a Merge, not an AfD. Rescinding my vote (and AfD nomination, essentially). If an admin would close this and subsequently add the Merge tag, I'd appreciate it. --Kinu 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, overwhelmingly. --WikiFanatic 03:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacSchool, WinSchool

[edit]

Non-notable educational software. No assertion of notability/importance. 203 unomitted Ghits for macschool winschool. Neglected articles by Cybiko123 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:22Z

See also: K12Planet (website, notable?), KDX (chat software, notable?) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:27Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macmine

[edit]

Non-notable website. Neglected article by 24.7.64.55 (talk · contribs). Traffic Rank for macmine.com: 2,434,058. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:31Z


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Miles Cotter

[edit]

Vanity biography, looks non-notable. No Ghits for "lawrence miles cotter", no related obvious related Ghits for "lawrence cotter", few Ghits for "Blue Dawg Sports". Neglected article by 12.29.245.130 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:34Z


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LCHS

[edit]

Non-notable search engine. Doesn't even have its own domain. No Alexa rank. Website does not load for me (times out). Neglected article by 203.186.238.142 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:37Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The Land 11:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Seattle Christian School

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sai sankalap

[edit]

Biography of an author. His book has Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,718,331 [7]. No assertion/evidence of notability. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 01:53Z


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Moroder

[edit]

Not notable. Google at 30 hits -Dr Haggis - Talk 01:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salaamizzle

[edit]

"Spiritual tradition" with no Google hits. Neglected article by Maggiem1987 (talk · contribs) (sole contributions). Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 02:01Z


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NewsReel (by RGMedia)

[edit]

This article is about a fledgling news syndication web site. It doesn't look like this site has ever been mentioned in the media, blogs, etc. so I don't think it is ready to have an encyclopedia article yet. No backward links in Google [9], no Alexa rank for news.rgmds.com. [10] Rhobite 02:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a beta, and was taken off the search engines by its owner until testing is complete. The article clearly states it's a beta. Secondly, blogs are not adequate measures for anything as they are owned by individuals who can not possibly view every single news site out there (especially if it has been temporarily taken off search engines), so it makes sence that it would not be mentioned on blogs. Furthermore, NewsReel is a free service and does not promote its owner's company, and gives all article credit to the respective sources. Finally, NewsReel recieves quite a bit of traffic from the public domain (even in its uncomplete state). Howeve, if you wish to delete the article please do not remove any redirects as NewsReel will soon be listed on Google, Yahoo, other search engines, blogs and will be ranked by Alexa. I think that it is too much of a hassle to delete something that will just need to be rewritten in a month or so. This adds another problem as by Wikipedia policy, you cannot re-post a deleted article. This would force others to take more time to reword a perfectly fine article.

Personally I think that the article should remain standing or be temp. removed and allowed be re-posted in its exact entirity when it is seen on other sources. 68.196.163.237 02:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ver Haege

[edit]

spam. not notable. seem to have broken up (see last edit). google Derex 02:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UKMCC

[edit]

Patent non-notable webforum. 467 registered members. No Alexa traffic rank. Neglected article by 195.10.45.155 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 02:08Z


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

The result of the debate was delete. If this is even remotely notable, please re-write in a decent manner. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:59, Feb. 6, 2006

Uk.rec.walking

[edit]

Non-notable usenet group. 22,000 posts via Google Groups. Neglected article created by 62.254.173.34 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 02:10Z

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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukcb

[edit]

Non-notable IRC (chat) server. Reached 1000 registered users in June 2005 [11].


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 11:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophomore Conspiracy

[edit]

A long-running geocities page with a name with zero google hits. I'm really sorry guys, I have to ask you to come back when your site is verifiable.-- Perfecto 02:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep, solely at administrator's discretion. The current content of the page is principally a quote from Politics as a Vocation by Max Weber. It is prima facie NOT original research, so I'm not deleting it.. The Land 11:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate end

[edit]

Original research. Neglected article by 128.103.191.243 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-31 02:15Z


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Givemebeats.com

[edit]

This spamlink/website is probably not notable. Only 57 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Givemebeats.com". For the 1 external link provided, the Alexa ranking is 1,414,665, and 0 other sites link to it, including Wikipedia and its mirrors. Only 1 other article links to this (Givemebeats, a redirect), it has only been edited by 1 user, and not since 12 December 2005. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 02:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Seaborg

[edit]

I'm renominating this page for deletion. This is the second nomination; the page was first nominated on January 22, 2006. The result of the debate was keep. The archive of the debate is here.

Why it deserves to be renominated so soon: Many people voted keep out of concern that the nomination was bad faith and a violation of WP:Point. The previous nominator nominated 18 biographies of people in category:atheists for deletion after his own articles on Christians were nominated. I count 8 "keep" votes in the original debate that cited "bad faith nomination" as a reason. Hopefully, this time we can debate the merits of the article.

Why it deserves to be deleted: Besides being the son of a Nobel laureate - hardly an accomplishment - this person hasnt done anything notable. Hes the president of an organization not notable enough to have a wikipedia page. And he has a little more than 400 google hits. Delete--Pierremenard 02:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he shook President Johnson's hand once; Ameritrade didnt want to let him bid on google and someone wrote up an article about it; published an academic paper; and gave a speech at an atheist convention. As for Who's Who, I admit it weakens my case, but it lists "110,000 of the nation's most noteworthy people" and "31,000 brand new listings" each year. --Pierremenard 04:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To delve further into that vein, he's also listed in Who's Who in Science and Engineering, and Who's Who of Emerging Leaders in America. I do see your objections -- he's not a household name by any stretch, but he's good at what he does, and respected within a notable community. How much does it take, exactly? :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 04:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I confess I am not sure of his importance as an "emerging leader" - you may be right about that. Nevertheless, as far as science in engineering, google scholar records 2 publications, 5 citations which definitely rules out his importance as a scientist/engineer. --Pierremenard 04:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's a bit extreme to say that this "rules out" his importance -- it weakens his notability as a published scholar, but that's not the only facet of this individual. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I meant only that it rules out his notability as a scientist/engineer. You are right to point out that the google scholar result does not rule out potential notability as something else, i.e. as an environmentalist. --Pierremenard 22:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mariano, You misunderstand. My WP:CIV was directed to the unsigned comment left in response to your vote!
Silly me, I should have checked the history. By the way, use the {{unsigned}} template for such occassions. Sorry again, and good wiking. Mariano(t/c) 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he was notable as a scientist, this would show up in his Google Scholar search, which is low. If he was generally notable, it would show up in his Google search, which it does not. --Pierremenard 19:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC) The comment to which I was replying in the above (which was not Jcuk's comment) seems to have disappeared. --Pierremenard 02:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The earlier nomination was one of Jason Gastrich's string of revenge nominations as part of his vandalising efforts. This fellow is indeed very borderline and the earlier AfD was derailed by the issue of WP:POINT, as per the nom. As it stands, I agree with the delete voters - not quite notable enough yet. Eusebeus 09:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Director of the World Rainforest Fund and son of the man who discovered plutonium?! C'mon, this is a no-brainer. Scientists generally tend to have fewer Google hits than the average "notable person" ... but a lot more hits in the scientific literature. Fight systemic anti-scientist bias on Wikipedia! Cyde Weys 10:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. Nice if those red links could be filled out so we could get a better picture of the man. Marskell 11:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article describes him as a director of a couple of non-notable organisations and a failed fund raiser, and as such he lacks significance. Sliggy 13:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. And no, not simply because of the family connection. Turnstep 14:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable person associated with non-notable organizations (the "World Rainforest Foundation," for example has only 97 Google hits. Makes Kadee Strickland look like Meryl Streep. Monicasdude 15:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like an OK article. JIP | Talk 17:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than being related to someone famous, it seems he raised $13,000 for his charity. Or 1.3% of his goal. If the amount of money he was able to raise is any indication of notability (and I think to an extent it is, being indicative of the level his work is at), he fails quite badly. -R. fiend 17:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The guy's more notable than Googling him makes him out to be, but I don't have time to dig out proof (hence the weak part of my vote). He's a bona fide academic, lectures, writes for environmental journals, and heads up a couple legit non-profits. Ikkyu2 17:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete family relations don't confer notability. His only other claim to fame is the "World Rainforest Foundation", "Greater Lafayette Open Space Fund", et al., which apparently can't meet their fundraising goals. In my opinion, that falls short of notability on simple precedent; Wikipedia does not have articles about other people who have started mre successful charitable organizations (Dan West of Heifers International or William Cunningham of Focus Hope for example). I just don't see anything here that puts him (notability wise) head and shoulders above anybody I could pull off the sidwalk.--Isotope23 18:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article at present fails to establish any notability. --DDG 20:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep He does appear pretty non-notable, but now it's here, it's not doing any harm if it stays. We have more important things to do. SP-KP 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, he's more notable that me, but less notable than his dad. Per SP-KP, there isn't any harm in having the article, it's not a horrible article, it's not vanity, he's not a high school kid or undergrad that created his own article. While the article's value to the encyclopedia is almost negligible, it's not entirely valueless. The lack of existence of articles on the organizations is of little value to our discussion unless those organizations were deleted persuant to an AfD. Non-existence is different than being propertly deleted. Peyna 22:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When this much rationalization has to go into why it should be kept, then it's usually because it really shouldn't be. --Aaron 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's just not enough information in the published record to write something substantial about him, that isn't him remembering his dad. (I say this as someone who tried to come up with more information, but couldn't.) Calwatch 06:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have more scientific publications than him (he has only one fide ISI's Web of Science), and have raised more money for environmental groups in which I'm an officer than he has (also, I've shaken hands with Al Gore;)), and I'm certainly not notable. This is not anti-science bias: notable scientists may tend to have fewer Google hits, but they have numerous and/or high quality publications. Being the son of someone notable isn't enough.--MayerG 15:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 20:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Chain

[edit]

Unverifiable trivia game submitted by its creator. No media coverage. Nn web results. Fails WP:V.-- Perfecto 02:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Easter Island

[edit]

Delete. This list is sourced from one book and disputed by essentially the entire scientific community. The article should be deleted and the list placed in a article on the book, Atlantis, the Seven Seals. The main Easter Island article could refer to this book and its dubious list. -Gavin 02:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wishes to create an article on the book, a merge will work. -Gavin 15:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion for nonsense. enochlau (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brick monster

[edit]

I can find no reference to an actual brick monster; delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day--Hansnesse 02:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Brick Monster article is very explanatory and should be kept in existence. it explains a theory on what causes people to fall over bricks slightly sticking up! You're just giving into the apavementists!—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.225.32.94 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Should not be deleted.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.225.32.94 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because some people choose to believe there is not a monster that causes mischeif of this type does not mean that they should ignore theories. Why not delete the page on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism just because it may not be true? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Nidiron (talk • contribs) 21:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: This is not nonsense. I am a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the phrase, "Brick Monster" is used in the same way as this article discusses it. While some might consider the post to be stupid, publication must start somewhere. This is why I co-authored the article. If you do not believe that people actually discuss the brick monster, listen to this: over 120 UNC students on the popular website facebook.com believe in the brick monster, according to enrollment in the "groups" section of the page. This, of course, is a minimum number of students, because this is the number of people who clearly know there are groups for people who believe what they do. There could also be other people out there that do believe, but do not know that they are part of a larger group of people. Thank you, Matthew, Co-Author and UNC-Chapel Hill Student—the preceding unsigned comment is by 152.23.192.126 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Google says less than 1,000 hits (650some to be more exact). While this is a narrow test, it doesn't establish notability. One could even call this a neologism. Jawz 04:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with nom, after the VfD discussion was deleted.. speedy delete. Jawz 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (again), Facebook has tons of usergroups with hundreds of members. Joining one doesn't mean that they all believe in the same thing; it is like myspace where some people join just for the fun of it or to have a zillion group listings on your profile. While I consider this article to be nonsense, there is always the avenue of trying to include "popular" (yes, this is probably POV dangerous) facebook groups on the Facebook article. My 5 cents. Jawz 04:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just because Facebook has a popular group doesn't mean the article is notable for its own article on Wiki.

You are correct. A Facebook comment or group may not be justification for the article, but in the same right, Wiki has an article about the Flying Spagetti Monster. Belief in "pastafarianism" has no basis in reality. Does it make it wrong for the author of that article to have posted it. How about Christianity? The religion has basis in fact, in the sense that we know a man existed and was executed by Roman guards. Other than that, there is more faith in it than there is fact. Should we then delete all references to Christianity? How about other religions. When you start drawing lines, they better be concrete and for good reason. I challenge you to find many differences between a belief in a "Brick Monster" and any mainstream religion's belief in a G-d or pantheon of gods. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 52.23.192.126 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments using ~~~~. Jawz 05:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for restoring the comments that were deleted. The original AfD Discussion was not deleted by either myself or my co-author, Nidiron. I understand the concern that this page is not valid, but the concern seems based in illogical thought patterns. If people can put articles about religions, spoof religions (i.e. Flying Spagetti Monsterism), or general beliefs, this article should be allowed on precedent. Looking into the situation further, the article clearly states that there are multiple theories behind the idea of the Brick Monster, and one of these ideas is that it is not real. If you have suggestions about changing the entry, I would be happy to take any advice you might be willing to give, discuss it with my co-author, and correct any basic problems. It falls into the "legend or myth" idea, I suppose. I would gladly make comment at the beginning. This would allow people to look up what a "Brick Monster" is, but it would let them know that the actual existance of such a creature is actually under debate. --Mneidich 07:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:kingdom of loathing

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

The result of the debate was keep, withdrawn by nominator -- nae'blis (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slater & Gordon

[edit]

Existing for nearly a year with no substantial information. Little noteriety and no references apart for it's own website. Delete čĥàñľōŕď 02:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

45 Google News articles on proposed class actions against Telstra and Multiplex see [18]. Capitalistroadster 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DriveSavers

[edit]

This appears to be an advertisement xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter S Petralia

[edit]

An evident autobiography of someone with 71 "most relevant" Google hits.-- Perfecto 03:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paracoccidioidomicosisproctitissarcomucosis

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Zilko-Miller

[edit]

Delete - Non-notable, 6 Google hits. Current article is a text dump from: http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/hood1.htm Vsmith 03:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chigga

[edit]

This is definitely real. I know the rapper Chigga. All of the information is accurate. I even bought all of his albums.

Comment: You know him, and you still had to pay for his albums? Find nicer fictional friends ;x Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely fake. Evil saltine 03:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The one who just edited the original nomination was the same person who made the article. Rory096 03:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Love

[edit]

One item in his IMDB filmography, and he's not even a named character in it. It's semi-verifiable, but is it notable? Signs point to no. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nice nomination. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, actors need to have at least a speaking/named part (preferrably more than one) before being included. - Mgm|(talk) 13:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with Mgm, and so does my Magic 8-ball. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Although his only credit seems to be the lead role, it's only a short film. Not enough for a Wiki article, I think. If he ever does several more films with notable roles, then it'd be different... But now? No. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who the heck is Adrian Lam o? He is not even in IMDB... None of you people have done anything constructive you are a bunch of critics...Doe he and all these people have nothing better to do but criticize other's notabliltiy? very unsexy..-Lauren
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.69.199 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 1 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 weak keep. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:01, Feb. 6, 2006

Katafalk

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:06, Feb. 6, 2006

Flag of Choson

[edit]

I can't figure out what the context or relevance of this is, and my requests for clarification (several months ago now) have not been responded to... AnonMoos 03:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil Makes Three (band)

[edit]

Doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. I figured it wasn't quite up to speedying because it claims that it has put out two full-length albums, but a few minutes of research provide no evidence that they are produced by major labels or any notable independent label. —Cleared as filed. 03:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They have lots of news coverage, like here, here and here. They won a local GoodTimes Best of 2005 award for Best Band. They are quite genre defining and unique. The article should stay. JoeSmack Talk 07:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per media coverage. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've heard of them myself, and I don't live in the music biz. Notable enough for me... Georgewilliamherbert 01:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well i'm sitting here in a coffee shop in the heart of VT hearing them for the first time--i had to ask who they were. apparently they're notable enough for me which lead me here to find you worrying if they are notable enough for you rather than questioning why you don't have more information about them!! kind of ironic a site which has bypassed the traditional publishing mechanisms is using the same to choose to limit what they allow! no doubt the major labels appreciate your support! as online self publishing grows i guess you'll choose to ignore those who choose that far more enlightened route.
  • Keep per the 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. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecopsoc

[edit]

Delete in line with convention of not listing non-notable university clubs. EcopSoc is not notable outside of its discipline. Sumple 03:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be an officially registered club/society: University of Sydney Union Club Directory --Sumple 10:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sethaphile

[edit]

Article asserts notability, but the claim seems to fail. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanguinary

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Kohler

[edit]

Searched on Google, found nothing on this; seems like a hoax to me, though I may be completely wrong. The closest is Catherine Kohler Riessmann, but this article asserts that the name begins with a K and she married a man with the last name Westley. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not; if it is, I'll withdraw the nom. Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 03:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was already speedied. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Far-Less

[edit]

No claim of notability (NN Band) Pete.Hurd 04:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Aday

[edit]
  • Delete: Not sure on the applicable standards here but it looks like a case of reflected glory. She's the daughter of Meat Loaf and the wife of Scott Ian but doesn't seem to have done anything notable herself, at least not according to WP:MUSIC. Maybe a merge to Meat Loaf? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable biography. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was (is?) a full member of Neverland Express, Meatloaf's group. Being a member of a notable band is criteria for keeping I think? Mind you the article could do with cleaning up. Jcuk 08:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Well, there's no mention of "Neverland Express" anywhere else in Wikipedia, including Meat Loaf. In fact, there's no mention of it on Amazon either. I've seen a few similar articles (relatives of notable people) deleted as hoaxes ---- maybe this is another one? Whatever Neverland Express was, the article says she was a touring member, not necessarily a full member. This is why I nominated - everything sounds very suspicious. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I see Neverland Express is Meat Loaf's touring band or something? How notable could it be if I had to find that out on Google instead of Wikipedia? So basically Pearl Aday was a backup singer on the touring band of a guy that hasn't had a hit in a decade?... —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean you've never had to make an article about a very notable band before? Just because WP doesn't have an article on it doesn't automatically mean it's not notable. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I assume your question is rhetorical - but the answer is no, I haven't. Is there something notable about this band that wouldn't just be in Meat Loaf? Regardless, the question is whether someone who has essentially been a backup singer needs a separate article. If yes then so be it. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My question actually wasn't rhetorical, but it probably should have been, given the amount of deletions you've been putting up the last few days. Just because it isn't on WP doesn't mean it's not notable, and I think this should stay, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 17:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, the bottom of the article admits its taken from her website. I think that makes it speediable as a copyvio, does it not? -R. fiend 17:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the same but it didn't look like the given URL was the same as the article. Maybe that note just means the web site is a reference? Or maybe it's a copyvio of some other page underneath that URL. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have to go to the "biography" section of that page: [19]. Looks indentical to me. -R. fiend 17:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regardless, if it is or not, I've cleaned it up somewhat and added wikilinks. It still needs some referencing regarding what albums she's been featured on, I'll try to get to it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Isn't copyvio in the edit history still an issue? Anyway, my vote is delete regardless. It's still a vanity piece, referenced only from her own site, which is not a good source. Not convinced singing backup on a couple albums is any more notable than playing 3rd violin some recording of Beethoven's 4th symphony that you'd find in a bargain barrel at music store. Perhaps recreate as a redirect to Neverland Express, if/when that gets an article. -R. fiend 18:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sure it can be dealt with without deleting the entire article. Also, there's an interview with her and Meat Loaf available from the UK Times here [20] that helps further establish notability. A little bit of googling goes a long way. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One simple test I have regarding reflected glory is, "would this person have an article if they weren't related to X"? I'd think the answer would be "no" in this case - but I could be wrong. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After doing some research, it's a certain maybe, and that's without mentioning a sort of precedent regarding children of famous people. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The answer has definitely been maybe as far as my Afd track record goes with such scenarios. Louis Osbourne was an article about Ozzy's son who had at least done some DJ'ing at clubs and was in a documentary about children of rock stars. His article is gone - merged into Ozzy's as a section (and I see has since been removed altogether). Eduard Einstein was the son of Albert and his only notability was being a schizophrenic who spent most of his life in institutions. His useless article remains - mostly on the basis that his name appears in www.schizophrenia.com. Those two establish no pattern whatsoever. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has appeared on a number of Meatloaf albums according to her Allmusic.com article see [21]. The London Times article further establishes verifiability. As to notability, we have kept backing musicians with a reasonable record of credits on significant records. She appears to qualify on this count. Capitalistroadster 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Merge into Meat Loaf or Delete as non-notable. If we have to go through this much navel-gazing to decide if she's notable, then she's not. --Aaron 23:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - esp. since the page mentions a forthcoming solo album. She also performed a duet on Couldn't Have Said It Better, rather than merely a backing singer. This is someone who's appeared in a notable role on an album with a worldwide release, not someone from a student band with homemade CDs. The Meat Loaf article is too big for a merge. The JPS 01:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Forthcoming album" argument is a little flimsy. It certainly wouldn't be the first planned album that never materialized. And the Meat Loaf article isn't even giving a length warning message so I think it would merge fine. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If her forthcoming album was her only point of notability, then you might have a point. She has a fairly solid resume. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's far worse things on wikipedia. Human judgement is sufficient for the length of the ML article. Take away the "Forthcoming album" and she's still notable. How many non-notable people have fan sites? The JPS 02:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lots of good points here. I'm just saying an alleged forthcoming album isn't one of them. And neither is the Meat Loaf article supposedly being too big for a merge. As for other arguments thusfar, I still don't see much notable outside of Meat Loaf - but so be it. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalroadster as notable. Turnstep 02:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on the article she's done a lot of good work. Absolutely no merge- this woman stands on her own. -- JJay 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Young (Cryptome)

[edit]

Any Tom Dick or Harry can maintain a website. Doesn't make you notable. This article doesn't seem to grasp this concept. Delete Bombycil 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the Cryptome article before determining that his site is non-notable. Also, we're voting about the person, not the site :)
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Partner Synergy

[edit]

Non-notable business term. A Google search reveals exactly 1 hit - used in a letter by a CEO of Celphi Corp in 2004. Delete Bombycil 04:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Webster

[edit]

A sad story but not really notable. Hundreds of people are murdered every day - do each of them deserve a Wikipedia page? I think not. Delete Bombycil 04:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stranded (film)

[edit]

This is a television show, not a film. In addition, we already have a stub about this at Stranded (television program). Rory096 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domainer

[edit]

Rubbish, unencyclopedic, vanity. Delete Ardenn 05:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Transwiki --Ardenn 03:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Term is used in an article in Business 2.0 (Dec. 2005). Among other places. Crypticfirefly 07:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a real term used in the domain business. The definition is accurate and not self interested at all. -Unsigned comment from 70.104.175.24.
  • I can not beleive anybody would try to strike an accurate entry such as this from Wikipedia. This simple example illustrates the weakness of search engine's and central repositories of info.. they can be undermined by special interests. Oh well, better get a domain name and publish the truth myself. -Unsigned comment from 63.130.192.13
  • Positively ridiculous. Google this term and see how many listings appear. Deletion requests such as this undermine the spirit of Wikipedia. What a pity. -Unsigned comment from 63.130.192.13


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Schilling

[edit]

Vanity, unencyclopedic. Delete Ardenn 05:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon Ingram Translation

[edit]
  • Delete Move - A 19th century translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle doesnt make an article. We dont have separate Wikipedia articles for each modern translation of an old text. Transwiki the bottom portion to Wikisource. Stbalbach 05:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikisource. But why delete the top portion? It seems to do no more than explain what this text is, but might be useful. Crypticfirefly 06:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noid - Origin

[edit]

True origin of the word "noid", a word I know only from a pizza commercial. I really can't make heads or tails of it, but in any case it looks like original research. Delete. bikeable (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the Noid is from Domino's Pizza. Over 600,000 hits w/Google, so it is somewhat notable. I don't know if it deserves its own article, but it should be deleted and merged into Domino's Pizza. Jawz 06:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin_Bradley (porn star)

[edit]

Delete. It is a simple vanity page, non-famous person Ciperl 07:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. --Deathphoenix 13:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Staple Singers/ Freda Payne

[edit]

Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 31/01/06, which in your star-time is still 31/01/06. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. I've closed a tonne of these articles in that exact same way (see this AfD log and do a search for "List of Soul Train episodes"). Closing now, but sent me a message on my talk page if you disagree. --Deathphoenix 13:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Tigers Junior

[edit]

This caught my attention while categorizing articles beginning with the letter G. It appears to be a non-notable flag football association of some sort, with 10 unique hits on Google. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 13:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chevalliers of Aspall Hall

[edit]

No real assertion of notability; belongs on a geneaology site, not Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bertha_Chevallier-Boutell OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another case of people forgetting that Wikipedia's an encyclopaedia, or getting all starry-eyed at the suggestion of so-called "nobility". If WP:NOT doesn't cover "breeding histories for chinless layabouts" it damn well ought to. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP2

[edit]

non notable phone. Delete. WP 08:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A good nomination should better resemble an argument and not so much a vote. Instead of simply declaring "non notable", you might like to consider explaining why the subject of the article is non-notable. Other points you might like to touch on are quality and size of the article, its connectedness within Wikipedia, the amount of Google activity surrounding the subject, and so on. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnyell Alexander

[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion. Alexander doesn't appear to be a notable figure and doesn't yet meet any one of Wikipedia's importance criteria. Google returns fifteen results for "Dawnyell Alexander". Please offer your comments. Adhall 08:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent nomination. This is the sort of thing we like to see when arguing for an article's deletion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreated content. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Wind (band)

[edit]

Previously nominated for AfD and deleted. Ineligible for Wikipedia in accordance with WP:MUSIC. haz (user talk) 08:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 22:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best-selling female singer

[edit]

Wikipedia is not an open forum, and this page seems irrelevant. Not sure what the article is trying to do - it just echoes info on the individuals' separate articles. haz (user talk) 08:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online RSS Creation Resource

[edit]

Was created as a vehicle for the promotion of the RSS Letter.com website after identical text was removed from RSS (file format). There is nothing in this page, which couldn't be better handled there. Delete. --S.K. 08:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chimpo

[edit]

"Chimpo is the representative figure for the Fargo North High School technical theatre crew." Does A7 count for figures? -- Kjkolb 09:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. What the Hell is a "representative figure"? A mascot? Figurehead? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Congressman?-Colin Kimbrell 22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete: By the way, it also refers to 'face-to-face marketing' or 'charity mugging': students who stop you in the street and get you to sign a standing order to a charity... The Land 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chugging

[edit]

Article is a description of a slang word with no sources. -- Kjkolb 09:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hoax. "Chug" as a word does exist, but in my experience it refers to skolling a drink, not "deviant sexual practices". Meanwhile, according to Google, there are a variety of other meanings for "chugging", including begging for money, sickness, or even the sound of an engine (remember trains "chugging" along?). An article could be written here, but we're better off just scrapping this one and starting afresh. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, you thought I haven't heard of chugging? Binge drinking is practically a sport where I live, which I guess explains all the alcohol poisonings and unplanned pregnancies. -- Kjkolb 09:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Sjakkalle as non-notable.May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)

Pseudoflux

[edit]

Original author fails to demonstrate the importance of this topic Adhall 09:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 22:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with plot twists

[edit]

Given no definition of a "plot twist" there are far too many films that could be included in this list. It already includes many that are dubious and will continue to be a magnet for such content. Yes, some of them are famous plot twists, but this would be better discussed in plot twist. violet/riga (t) 09:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent nomination. It's always good to see someone making an argument for deletion in their nomination. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Magic MagicDraw UML

[edit]

This article is a clearly promotional material from a software developer. Delete Adhall 10:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Split and/or duplicated discussions are harmful. Please contribute at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Gazeebow_Unit. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gazeebow Unit

[edit]

This article was nominated before. It's been listed on Wikipedia:Deletion review. This Newfoundland rap group has attracted national interest and appeared on a flagship arts program of Canadian national radio, This fact was noted by the person voting keep on the original AfD but seems to have been disregarded, which in my opinion was probably an error.

I think it may well be a good idea to arrive at a consensus on this. I'll note that, while I'm unsure about how Wikpiedians will react to this kind of content, I think it may well be worthy of an article. Since there are some people who seem to want it to be deleted without a proper discussion in this forum, I thought I'd like to make sure that it gets a chance, --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems notable enough due to the description and they are real. There are bands and groups out there that don't release records or albums and exists only on radio stations, but if it they are a regular then I think it is indeed notable. Just because most of the world cannot hear their stuff doesn't mean they don't deserve a listing. Ben W Bell 11:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mi vida loca

[edit]

Simply a pointless article. Ben W Bell 10:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. If you think it should be transwiki'd and it hasn't been (I didn't bother checking), please explain why at my talk page and I'll do take care of it. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:16, Feb. 6, 2006

"no, ifs, ands, or buts"

[edit]

Would be better placed in Wiktionary, but seems not to warrant a Wikipedia article (WP:NOT) haz (user talk) 11:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was refer to copyvios. Babajobu 13:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illanoiz

[edit]

Total copyvio from the page http://www.4horsemenrecords.com/level1/artists_indiv.asp?ArtistID=1 Ben W Bell 11:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyBrotherClan

[edit]

Tagged for speedy as "Non-existent gang", but not a candidate, especially when BlankVerse on the article's talkpage has a link claiming its existence. So it will be a question of notability or the reliability of the source. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the source does seem to suggest that a gang calling itself "Crazy Brothers Clan" did exist somewhere, sometime, somehow. But it's unlikely to be the same one, as this one claims to be based in Long Beach, while the one in the source is in conflict with the "Tiny Rascals", who according to this are based in New England. Unless their conflict consists of launching ICBMs at each other, it's unlikely the gangs in the source and the article are one and the same. All other info is unverified and likely unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Sounds like a fictional gang. Horridly written. The Deviant 14:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 20:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is only an extreme example of the type of street gang article that is typical on the Wikipedia. They are filled with unverfiable information and original research. In my opinion, almost all of them should be deleted. BTW: There does seem to be a Tiny Rascals or Tiny Raskals gang in the Los Angeles area. BlankVerse 09:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 18:53 2006-02-05


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tri cities poker tour

[edit]

Appears to be a flashy title for someone's home poker game. Delete Essexmutant 11:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Blagg

[edit]
for those who missed it, an anonymous user at 166.77.6.4 blanked this AFD page on the afternoon of 1/31. I have restored it and put a warning on his page.Uucp 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Polk

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Amiott

[edit]
Please consider writing a nomination rather than just jumping in with your "vote". Wikipedia is not a democracy, and being able to throw up a bolded delete is not nearly so valuable as clearly and concisely, preferably with reference to policy, explaining why you think an article should be deleted. For instance, your vote here (which should have been a reason for deletion instead) mentions notability and vanity. Why not explain why the subject is non-notable? Why you believe the article to be vanity? And so on. A good argument for deletion is worth half a dozen votes any day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to play ball and elaborate on this, but is seems that explaining the non-notability of somebody who has never done anything of significance is akin to proving a negative. What do you want me to say? He's a writer whose byline appears in no magazines in ProQuest, or on any books in Amazon.com. He's an actor who has never been in any movie. He participated in a small town improv group for a couple of years. I feel as though I'm just re-typing the bio here -- he hasn't done anything noteworthy. Uucp 15:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Levy

[edit]

nn-bio, vanity page of 19-year-old poker player (isn't that illegal in the USA?) If Googling beware of David Levi, who is a professional player, but unrelated. Delete. Essexmutant 11:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Zumock

[edit]
Please consider writing a nomination rather than just jumping in with your "vote". Wikipedia is not a democracy, and being able to throw up a bolded delete is not nearly so valuable as clearly and concisely, preferably with reference to policy, explaining why you think an article should be deleted. For instance, your vote here (which should have been a reason for deletion instead) mentions notability and vanity. Why not explain why the subject is non-notable? Why you believe the article to be vanity? And so on. A good argument for deletion is worth half a dozen votes any day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jef Etters

[edit]
Please consider writing a nomination rather than just jumping in with your "vote". Wikipedia is not a democracy, and being able to throw up a bolded delete is not nearly so valuable as clearly and concisely, preferably with reference to policy, explaining why you think an article should be deleted. For instance, your vote here (which should have been a reason for deletion instead) mentions notability and vanity. Why not explain why the subject is non-notable? Why you believe the article to be vanity? And so on. A good argument for deletion is worth half a dozen votes any day. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:41, Feb. 6, 2006

January 28, 2006

[edit]

Non-standard day page - I might have just redirected it to January 28, but it's best to not encourage linking to dates like this (as it bypasses people's date display preferences). — sjorford (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second - investigating further..........................

Okay, I just noticed the "This date in recent years" section on the existing day pages, which links to January 28, 2006, January 28, 2005, January 28, 2004, and January 28, 2003. I hadn't noticed this before. Is it a Good Thing? Is it just intended for inclusion on the Current Events pages? Please help unconfuse me... — sjorford (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furtherness: list of links to similar pages here. — sjorford (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, bypasses preferences. We have a standard in the manual of style about dates. Anything that links to pages like this should be linked to the date without a specific eyar attached. - Mgm|(talk) 14:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've put a list of all such pages I can find on my Playpen - in particular, there seem to be a lot of pages included as templates on monthly pages for the first six months of 2003, 2004 and 2005. Is there some sort of organised project that's creating these pages? I'm tempted to withdraw this AFD until more is known. — sjorford (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As was discussed the last time this came up, the developers (specifically at the time, Tim Starling I believe) said it was trivial to adapt the MediaWiki logic so that prefences are respected for this date types too. I am actually kind of surprised that it hasn't been turned on yet :(. Even so I think the single date pages are a great idea Keep :-). Pcb21 Pete 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save Toby

[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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De nuke

[edit]

Appears to be a random mod or map for CS. Stifle 11:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Babajobu 13:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel_teleproters

[edit]

Delete. Article title mispelled. Changed the only link on Wikipedia to point to article with proper spelling. Noble 12:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing we usually do on Wikipedia when we have duplicate articles at mispellings is create a redirect to the proper article. I've done so here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by user:geogre. Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt K. Watlers

[edit]

Non-notable, dubious. Adrian Buehlmann 12:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Systems CMS

[edit]

non-notable content management system. Page reads like an advertisement. It doesn't even get any google hits. Therefore, delete. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted, no assertion of notability. Ashibaka tock 14:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman verone

[edit]

Non-notable article about an unsigned recording artist. I would have deleted it as such, but I'm not so sure since Google search turns up quite a lot of results, even though they have been inflated by blogspots etc. Delete May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was change to disambiguation page. haz (user talk) 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obtuse

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary is. haz (user talk) 13:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Since Wiktionary (probably) already has an article on Obtuse, we can safely delete this one with neither fuss nor, with care, the slightest muss. And if anyone says "transwiki to Wiktionary" on this one I'm telling User:Uncle G on you! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 13:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Yazdani

[edit]

Unverifiable. Writers.net doesn't list them, yet their site is given as a reference. With the book coming out bit it sounds a lot like advertising for a non-notable writer. - User:MacGyverMagic 13:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite what's said above, this author is listed at writers.net [28] with significant publishing credits, in several languages. He's no Kadee Strickland, but that's not a criterion for deletion. (However, the announcement linked above refers to a book by his father, which doesn't directly show notability for the son, but supports the basic verifiability of the article.) Monicasdude 17:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted

Apex White Supremecist Group

[edit]

Seems to be vanity? In any case, is uninformative and should be deleted in accordance with WP:NOT. haz (user talk) 13:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable band. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 14:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They might be grapefruit

[edit]

NN band, two google hits, admits to having only one song, so fails WP:MUSIC. I'm not sure whether having a Cafepress shop and a rival band is an assertion of notability, so I'm listing here. Delete. Kusma (討論) 13:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete --Durin 15:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozny

[edit]

I suspect that this is a nn-bio. I don't speak whatever language this is, but I know English, Spanish and smattering of other Romance languages, and this looks like a personal page to me. Esprit15d 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madfrog

[edit]

Article was nominated for speedy deletion but doesn't qualify, since the article does assert notability. That's why I'm putting it up here. No vote. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 13:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article states that he is a professional player and a world champion, which meets WP:BIO. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FaceIT

[edit]

Counterstrike gaming team, currently inactive. Assertion of notability is that it has been called "an all-star team", but all unsourced. Delete. Kusma (討論) 14:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus kinski (band)

[edit]

Non-notable band. Google only turns up hits for the German actor with the same name, as far as I can tell. Delete. Deli nk 14:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete --Durin 15:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Face Down in Mexico City with an Ice Pick in the Back

[edit]

Non-notable band. Delete. Deli nk 14:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyvio --Durin 15:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo boccazzi varotto

[edit]

This page is a copyright violation of this page, as it is a direct translation with no changes. It needs to be substantially reworded or deleted. Esprit15d 14:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case speedy copyvio. -- Andy Saunders 14:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep -Mysekurity 03:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bestival

[edit]

nn Erwin


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American-Hoster

[edit]

Apparently spam. Russ Blau (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Federation

[edit]

I can't quickly google any usage of "European Federation" as it is used in this article, strongly suggesting that it is original research. Also, the lede for the article, The European Federation is a hypothetical future federal state encompassing the continent of Europe, brings "WP:NOT a pair of crystal WP:BALLS" to mind. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Europe for a similar AfD) Delete. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 14:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by relister: There seems to be a general consensus that this needs to be redirected (and possibly merged). The question is, where do we redirect (and possibly merge) this article? --Deathphoenix 14:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Roop

[edit]

Delete. Notable slam poet, but would a sculptor whose only claim-to-fame was winning sculpture competitions be notable for inclusion? See also: Rev. Jack and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rev. Jack. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Disobedients

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable band. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Pathoschild, CSD A7 --lightdarkness 04:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M.Titty

[edit]

Obvious hoax, not even questionable. Picture is Biggy Smalls. ...not to mention the article's horrible structure. Also, all other "contributions" from this contributor are similar. The Deviant 12:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sing-A-Ling

[edit]

Junk article. Joke/Hoax, Not Notable, etc. Everything else from this contributor is like this, no reason to think this is any different. The Deviant 12:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Abhyanker

[edit]

Vanity: "highly accomplished...". Selling a book on Amazon [29] is not sufficient to be notable IMHO. The review of the book on Amazon is actually not extraordinary. Edcolins 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid database fields accounts

[edit]

Detailed, nerdish page about AOL Instant Messenger accounts. Importance not established. Un-encyclopedic. -- RHaworth 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gillsconnect

[edit]

Unnotable vanity; unencyclopedic DanielCD 15:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New investigator

[edit]

Reads almost like a dictdef, seems to be exclusively used by NIH in a single set of resources. I'm not sure if this belongs on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys 20:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 23:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the whip! :-) No. The definition of new investigator is quite extended across other funding agencies, not just the NIH. But, yes the entry is too short. I need a bit of time to collect some more material (see latest changes). I would like to deal with the problems of investigators starting their careers as independent researchers in a very competitive environment with limited funding. The NIH graph is quite worrying. I wonder if there are other studies for other grants that show similar trends.--Miguel Andrade 00:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep an interesting article with the clear possibility for growth. Perhaps a title clarifying that it is for research, rather than PIs or something, would be nice. Makemi 04:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 15:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Noble

[edit]

musician un-notability, delete. Melaen 15:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowiki

[edit]

un-notable php script, delete. Melaen 15:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Corps. Mailer Diablo 05:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Army Corps

[edit]

This article already exists at Corps and is unnecessary. haz (user talk) 15:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dongs

[edit]

I can't find any evidence of the band's existence.[30] Non-notable at best. Optichan 15:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax, nn.--Adam (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Worl, they are from Singapore, with all that implies on the searchability front. Assuming the article is true, they seem notable enough. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. A Google search for "The Dongs" Singapore doesn't come up with anything to verify this. Given that Singapore is a first-world city where English is an official language this verifiability problem is surprising if they were a notable band. A further search for "The Dongs" Singapore band again came up with no verifiable information see [31]. Capitalistroadster 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Coming

[edit]

No Idea what on earth it is about, Delete --Differentgravy 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Differentgravy 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colegrove (surname)

[edit]

Surnames don't seem to be notable for articles. delete --Revolución (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandlapper

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Golf

[edit]

Is an irrelevant article, does not assert the importance of the subject. I am renowned for citing WP:NOT, but I guess I'll have to do it again. haz (user talk) 16:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 04:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy Caleb

[edit]

Half the text which is in this article should actually be in The Cowboy Bar. However, even if we leave out this information, what's left behind is nothing more than a non-notable guy...there are so many people that run moderately popular blogs. Also, this article reads like an advertisement.SoothingR 16:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cum Dumpster

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. ShadowPuppet 16:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish car licence plates

[edit]

Nothing notable here Nv8200p talk 16:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bashaw

[edit]

Non-notable bio. No prominent Google links for this individual at all EuroSong 16:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tree people records

[edit]

nn, possible vanity Adam (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ooi

[edit]

I'd say he's pretty non-notable, all he has achieved are a few contributions to a few Malaysian blogs.. Keep, see down. SoothingR 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did do an in-depth search, but couldn't find these BBC articles which you refer to now. All information which I had found didn't seem to make him meet the notability-guidelines. I apoligize for my oblivion. Thanks for the information, and for this reason I'm changing my vote to keep.SoothingR 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no problems about that. Though just curious, what led you to think he was in the Singaporean blogging scene? :) --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 14:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled upon Cowboy Caleb (who is Singaporean, according to his article) by accident. After I nominated that for deletion, I started wandering around in more articles relating to the Southeast-Asian blogscene.SoothingR 15:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ The Blade

[edit]

Reads like a press release, the notability of this hasn't been established despite being recreated after a speedy about a month ago.[40]. Could technically be speedied now, but i'm putting it here to resolve the matter once and for all. Delete Karmafist 16:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mindmatrix 20:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goobuntu

[edit]

A page on a supposed secret and in development Linux distro from Google that may or may not exist. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Delete. RasputinAXP talk contribs 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Confirmed by Google:

Google has confirmed it is working on a desktop linux project called Goobuntu, but declined to supply further details, including what the project is for. [41]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Pitt

[edit]

I'm not sure that this artist meets the criteria for inclusion of biographies. The article states that the artist has several exhibitions since the 1980s and is listed in an "Encyclopaedia of Watercolour Landscapes". I'm unable to find any trace of his exhibitions, and can't find the "Encyclopaedia of Watercolour Landscapes" in the catalogue of the British Library. Altogether he looks like a local Suffolk painter with no indication of a wider audience. Pilatus 16:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Very low unique Google hits, and seems to fail WP:BIO for living persons: (Painters .... whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.) Also, two of the external links provided appear to be to his own site. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syphernet

[edit]

There is no indication that this company meets WP:CORP. Pilatus 16:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From DancingBeaver(The Founder) - You try Paying some money grabbing solisiter £300 to sign one little bit of paper!!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helmer Syndrome

[edit]

No hits for the good Dr Hendrik Helmer on Google Scholar, and there is no "Glassgow University of Human Science" in Germany. Delete as Complete Bollocks. Pilatus 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flecko.net

[edit]

Advertising Seinfreak37 17:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I further note that Tarrasque is listed as a significant user so it has a whiff of vanity about it. Further, the founder of the site "doesn't post quite as often as he used to, uninterested in the forums now that he has more important things to worry about." Capitalistroadster 23:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am the Andrew mentioned in the entry. The piece is a ton of fluff, characterized by extremely poor writing and containing little of importance. I took the liberty of making certain changes (such as the removal of my last name) in the article. Further, most of the content of the entry is suited more for a particularly poor Uncyclopedia entry than a Wikipedia entry. At the very least, the pieces on the forums and users should be cut out and the entry should be relegated to a brief mention of Flecko.net being the home of Madness Interactive and Max's other games. Andrew 00:24 February 1 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed the speedy deletion tag because this version of the article is far more expanded than the one originally deleted back in October 2005. howcheng {chat} 00:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You're absolutely right; when I looked at the article, I somehow missed the AfD box (I guess because it ran into the TOC?), looked at the history and saw that it had been through a previous AfD and when I looked at that revision, the AfD box went to the original AfD. Somehow all of that conspired to confuse me into thinking it was simply a repost, and I didn't see the second AfD nomination. My apologies. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Center

[edit]

Appears to be a local community outreach group, but I don't see an assertion of a level of notability that would cover it being in the encyclopedia. A lot of effort has gone into writing this initial revision, hence my AfD instead of speedy, perhaps the community has some ideas. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; see other debates on the subpages. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kansas River/Biogeography

[edit]
Sub-pages are specified in WikiMedia style-guide as pre-staging area (sandbox) for submitting wikt:watershed community stewardship issues.
RJBurkhart 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; see other debates on the subpages. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kansas River/Dam safety monitoring

[edit]
Sub-pages are specified in WikiMedia style-guide as pre-staging area (sandbox) for submitting wikt:watershed community stewardship issues.
RJBurkhart 18:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; see also the discussion on other AfDs regarding similar subpages of Talk:Kansas River. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kansas River/Shawnee Crossings

[edit]
Sub-pages are specified in WikiMedia style-guide as pre-staging area (sandbox) for submitting wikt:watershed community stewardship issues.
RJBurkhart 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; see other debates pertaining to subpages of Talk:Kansas River. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kansas River/Virtual Team Tactics

[edit]
Sub-pages are specified in WikiMedia style-guide as pre-staging area (sandbox) for submitting watershed community stewardship issues.
RJBurkhart 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; see other debates on Talk:Kansas River subpages. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kansas River/Community toool box

[edit]
Sub-pages are specified in WikiMedia style-guide as pre-staging area (sandbox) for submitting watershed community stewardship issues.
RJBurkhart 18:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masha Bruskina

[edit]

This woman was a Russian partisan who was executed by the Germans in WW 2. The German forces killed partisan fighters in droves, and there is nothing specifically notable about her. Pilatus 17:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart thompson

[edit]

I was very tempted to speedy this, but I guess founding some hyponosis clinics is sort of a claim of notability. Pretty bad one though. -R. fiend 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emergalv

[edit]
  • Keep

As the author of this entire article, I would like to understand why my article is considered unfit for Wikipedia. I have read the Deletion guide and found no fault my article may have to warrant deletion. I first wish to express my understanding that Wikipedia is a wide-ranging service meant to contain a wealth of information about the widest array of respectable topics possible. I have written this article bearing in mind the rules of Wikipedia. For several reasons, I believe my article has a place on Wikipedia.

Arguments

  1. I object to the claim of non-notable game(?). To this I answer: In the Related Links section I have supplied sufficient proof of the existance of the topic on which I chose to write an article. Furthermore, though Emergalv is not a commercial product, it has nonetheless been playtested using the Dungeons and Dragons system. As such, it can be first defined as a game, and secondly can be described as a valid campaign setting available for testing to whoever asks.
  2. I also object to the claim of advertisement. I have chosen to share my intellectual property on Wikipedia by presenting objective content and clear, intelligible definitions of the world I have written about. This is not a vanity article, though credit must be given to the people who have worked on Emergalv, including myself. Emergalv is not a product to be sold, just as Wikipedia is not to be used as a platform for advertisement.

Should it be found that I cannot provide satisfying answers to the claims leading to the deletion of this article, I will radpidly withdraw without complaint.

Now I ask this : Does deletion include the possibility of establishing a wiki site outside of Wikipedia? I cite in example the Homestar Runner Wiki and the UFOPaedia site. If my article is to be removed from Wikipedia, I would like to learn the procedure to creating an outside Wiki site.

AvianSavara 23:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but there's always Wikicities. It's not directly connected with Wikipedia but I believe it uses the same software. That said, if they don't take you they have links to other Wiki providers. Haikupoet 02:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am going to see the the decision we take here before making a complete move (or not), but I have already set myself up a mirror of this article on RPG Wikicities. Thanks for the idea, however :D AvianSavara 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good luck with that. The problem is that a lot of people come in here thinking Wikipedia is something it's WP:NOT and get into big arguments over it. A lot of misunderstandings happen over that issue that boil over into accusations of censorship and other assorted nastiness. Thank you for your understanding, and I hope you have much to contribute in other areas. Haikupoet 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can count on my participation on other topics. Whatever the outcome of this debate, I will continue to read and edit Wikipedia. Amidst all the (let's face it)trash that can be found online, I believe Wikipedia is the best thing to ever happen on the internet. AvianSavara 04:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Alhutch 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Pearce

[edit]

This page is vanity and was marked as such the day it was created. It describes a non-notable person who "works in promoting valid W3C standards across the web" and owns a non-notable company that is "famous" for "the way they are pushing standards to the edge". The creator of the article has no other contributions on Wikipedia, other than to (presuambly - slightly different IP addresses) remove a previous VFD tag on the article. CrypticBacon 17:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Betty and Veronica syndrome

[edit]

The article is unsourced, and since it sounded like a perfectly good syndrome to me I went looking for sources; when I was only able to find nine relevant google hits, however, I decided it might be a little early for this to be in the encyclopedia. - squibix(talk) 17:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dandun 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user:Dandun. It is a real life condition and part of everyday slang,used by teenagers mainly. I have heard it being used many times. Pojojo 05:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep: withdrawn by nominator. Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Šećeroski

[edit]

Either nn bio or a hoax. 42 unique ghits, none of which are in English. Delete Makemi 17:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He's for real, so much seems certain - I don't know any Serbocroatian, but this biography page [42] seems to confirm pretty much the same things as the article says. "rođen je 1934. u selu Radožda, na obali Ohridskog jezera." = 'Born in 1934, in the village of Radožda, near Lake Ohrid'; "za predsednika Srbije kandidovao se 1990." = 'In 1990 he ran for Serbian president', etc. And if he ran for president, and got 12.236 votes (if I guess correctly what the page is saying), then he is hardly non-notable. Lack of English-language info is no ground for deletion. We can always ask Serbian Wikipedians (Category:User sr) to verify these sources for us. Lukas (T.|@) 18:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this were true I would expect to find some mention in the AP archives, and I haven't. I wonder if this person has an anglicized name which is used in sources? As it is, references only in Serbocroation seem a lot like non-verifiable info to me. Makemi 19:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why? Is there anything inherent in the language that makes it less reliable than English? :-) Seriously, that seems a rather dangerous statement to me, and not at all compatible with Wikipedia policies against Anglo-Saxon bias. This guy seems to be an - admittedly minor - figure on the national political stage, probably regarded more as a clown than as a serious player. Why would foreign media want to report on him? I don't remember the 1990 elections, but probably foreign attention was then focussed on other things, wouldn't it? Lukas (T.|@) 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Rescind my nomination, per new sources (Sorry, some of the quotes made me think it was a hoax). Admins please note.Makemi 23:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Alhutch 18:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cronin

[edit]

Unverifiable nn-bio. Delete Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taramakin

[edit]

Non-notable. 1 google hit. ComputerJoe 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax. Go to the one hit and you will see it has nothing to do with the "artist". Also look carefully at the birth and death of this person. He was born in 1982- very young...--Adam (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Latinus 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. This man has some popularity in the region. Our group still searches information about him. Some can be found in Russian internet. Kontrast


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Order of Druids

[edit]
  • The New Order of Druids is a website with Alexa rank near 194000. No assertion is made, and no indication is given that the folks who run it command any respect or have otherwise been noted in the Neopagan community. Pilatus 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alexa rank, no evidence of media mentions, no books about them, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This article is not in violation with Wikipedia policy. Notable organisation New Order of Druids. Is mentioned in "The Solitary Druid: Walking the Path of Wisdom and Spirit" by Rev. Robert Lee (Skip) Ellison (Archdruid-Ar nDraiocht Fein (ADF)) page 245. This was in the talk page, you could have read this yourself if you had done your homework. Vorak 19:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment One mention on a single page of one book? That seems awfully thin. If "The Solitary Druid" is considered to be a major defining work on Neopaganism, that might establish notability, but given that the book doesn't have a page of its own, that seems unlikely. Vanigo 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that that is very thin, but do not agree that a book used to establish notability should have a Wikipedia entry. It would help if we knew what the book actually says (for example, that information could be in the article). Kusma (討論) 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not exactly what I meant. If there was an entire chapter devoted to the organization in a not-particularly-notable book, that'd establish notability, or if there was even a single sentence in an extremely important book, that'd do it, but a single reference in a book of questionable importance? That's two strikes and you're out, IMHO. Vanigo 22:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alexa rank and nomination. --Andy Saunders 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This and other related articles (see David Dom, Karayana, etc.) have been led to a no consensus by what appear to be meatpuppets. --Bugturd Talk 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not surprised to see that the same thing happens here as has happened to almost every other article I ever contributed to Wikipedia... whatever valid proof or argument is given is waved away or minimized in order to get the article deleted at any cost. Well I can tell you already that it has been the very last time I have ever contributed to Wikipedia, and I won't be the only one leaving. By the time you people are done deleting everything, Wikipedia will only consist of your own User article pages, hope you'll have fun with them. I really can't waste my time and energy on this stuff any more, I have actual important things to do. Vorak 20:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am sorry that you are having such a bad time with Wikipedia. It would probably help if you could write about something else than you and your friends, though. Starting things like this is also not helping. Kusma (討論) 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn website/club. If the group is more significant than that, astound us with references -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable small organisation.Obina 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start from scratch - talk page notes that it is licensed content from N.O.D., and it reads like Madison Avenue, Nebraska copy. How many members are there? One mention in Skip's book (I have it at home) does not make the group notable, as I recall there being a lot of smaller groups mentioned there. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless importance in the neopaganism community can be shown (disregard my vote if I forget to change it in that case). As a website, it clearly fails to be notable enough. Kusma (討論) 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing anything indicating any actual impact -- however small -- on the world and plenty of puffery. And Gad, that "Overview" sounds like it was translated from the Japanese. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References? That's a good one, as if any reference whatsoever would be taken serious. The reference of the book, for example, is waved off just because the book has no article on Wikipedia. Why do you think that is? Because either you already deleted it, or because you would end up deleting it anyway so people stop bothering to contribute. Aside from the book, The Druid Network (TDN), Eadhadh and ADF find NOD or its sub-organisations important enough to give it a webpage of its own. Or it could be mentioned that NOD was founded on the same day as TDN, already has set up one local grove and is in the process of setting up more local groves in Europe and North America, or that it currently has over 600 members, and offers a free online Druid college that currently contains over 250 students worldwide (NOD and its Grove of Dana college is one of the very few Druid organisations in the world that offer teaching online and believe it should not come at any monetary cost!). But of course, all this will be regarded as is predictable, and I could go and work on an actual list of references, but honestly, why would I? Just to see it being trashed? No, thanks. It's not taken serious anyway, whatever any contra-delete vote comes up with, and you will keep digging until you find another reason to get an article deleted. If Alexa ranking won't give you a reason, you'll keep looking until you find another reason. Oh and nice template on top of this page, you might as well just say that any "keep" votes whatsoever will be disregarded anyway and that the nomination for deletion is just a formality because it's already a decided cause from the start (as it always is). Of course, it's easy to gather some Wikipedia members and get them to vote delete as well, but when people do the same to obtain keep votes, it's suddenly a disgrace. Sorry, but I really won't play along those games any more, and I'm sure that others feel the same way. By the way for your information, we did contribute other articles too, such as Merlin's Oak and the English translation for Gwenc’hlan Le Scouëzec by Vorak, but of course it all doesn't matter. If you want to delete this article, so be it, I won't be around to put it back up anyway, but Wikipedia's loss is our gain. Wikipedia will only decrease in number of articles (and as a result, degrade in quality) and let other wiki sites grow larger instead. So, keep up the good work! Aneirin 13:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, knowing how many members you have (from the website it was difficult to tell if there were 60 or 600) is helpful. However how many of those 600 are defined from mailing lists? WP:WEB likes to have online organizations written about by others, and to have a large member base for forum-type sites. If it was 600 local/active folks, it'd be easier to verify your importance. Honestly, the fact that most of your copy comes straight from N.O.D.'s website or members makes people all the more suspect of the actual importance. As I said, I'm checking on the Solitary Druid reference; however I could find no mention on ADF's website of your organization, as you claimed: [43]. Am I missing something, or is it in the members-only section? I searched there as well but maybe you know the page where it's listed. We're trying to help you, but you do have to understand how things work here; it's not based around what we know, it's what we can prove. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What the hell is you're problem? All of you? Do you really think that the only good druidic website is one you should pay for? Then you people are nothing near druids you're just plain kapitalists. About this article itself. What is you're problem with it? Why don't you people want to connect yourself in anyway anymore with the NOD. Especially since you made the article larger not so long ago. I said this once before... You people are not worthy of being called encyclopedia you are something to laugh with. Ravenlady 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or prune to stub. I checked with Skip himself, and the original submission for the book, or close to it, can be found here (site is framed, main page is here). The material was sent in by David Dom and edited "all of them to drop down to just a paragraph or two". I get the impression therefore that this was part of the laundry list of groups at the end of the book, and as it was submitted by the founder, it suffers the same circular-verifiability problems as anything off of the N.O.D. website or The Druid Network. Until this group achieves success outside their own circles, I can't see us having a page on them, especially ad copy. I would be willing to help them prune out things that can't be verified from outside the group, but I fear they won't like the result. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nae'blis's evidence based reasoning. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nae'blis, who clearly knows the subject area much better than I do. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The online college of the New Order of Druids, the Grove of Dana is accepted by the international Druid Network as a college that provides a good long-distance course on the different aspects and grades within Druidry: Grove of Dana on the Druid Network website

Torc 23:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete for nn-group. enochlau (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shankism

[edit]

Delete under WP:NN and WP:NFT--M@rēino 18:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling Ham Agency and Norwegian Barry

[edit]

Non-notable amusement website. -- RHaworth 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; put this on DRV if any proof of his existence can ever be found, or just recreate with some decent sources. Johnleemk | Talk 14:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saurdacil

[edit]

Character in the Lord of the Rings universe who is... never mentioned by Tolkien. Delete as Tolkienfancruft. bikeable (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MiniBB

[edit]

Delete as advertisement for website even though there is no link provided Bugturd Talk 19:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GSPN

[edit]

An email newsletter with 5 subscribers is not notable. NoIdeaNick 19:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GSPN is a viable newsletter that is sent out to between 50 and 100 people each week, thus it is a notable newsletter.


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

The result of the debate was redirected already. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War metal

[edit]

Made up musical genre. Neoglism of certain bands from the Black Metal genre. Supposed themes of this 'genre' are key themes in the genre of Black Metal, and as such, this list draws no distinction from Black Metal nor does it have any source, or notablity. Deleted and redirect to Black Metal Leyasu 19:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Academy and Albany Academy for Girls Wiki

[edit]

Delete possibly speedy as copyvio. Looks like a course syllabus copied directly from a webpage for one of the courses there Bugturd Talk 19:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted - it is not a cut and paste - OK the URLs in it were. This is for our course Computer_Writing at Albany Academy for Girls in Albany NY

Comment:Then it does NOT belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encylcopedia, not a hosting site. If you would like to host up random stuff, try blu-wiki.org --Ac1983fan 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really don't see how this fits into Wikipedia, it isn't encyclopediac, it just seems to be the syllabus for a course. Lammoth 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've moved it to the teacher's user space. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-2 19:35


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 14:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Schaller

[edit]

Schaller was allegedly responsible for raising $8 million for the Thune campaign against Tom Daschle, but a cursory Google shows no notability, and I don't believe this in itself makes Schaller notable. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Andy Saunders' google search was inaccurate. If you google Schaller and Thune, the 2nd posting is from an article which references Schaller's involvement in Thunes historic victory. From the February 2005 edition of Campaigns and Elections Magazine, ""John Schaller has been promoted to vice president of political services at The Lukens Company after five years with the company. John has been a leader in the expansion we've had. This promotion is a testament to the significant contribution he's already made," LTC president Walter Lukens said. In his new position, Schaller manages the 13 people on the political staff, Lukens said. As political director in 2004, Schaller ran the direct mail fundraising for U.S. Sen. John Thune's campaign, which raised more than $8 million in less than eight months." I think this is evidence enough to KEEP Schaller on Wikipedia. -Seinfeld01
Specifically Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_still_alive is the relevant policy. -Jcbarr 22:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to check your internet connection. If you google "Schaller Thune" articles from Campaigns & Elections will come up. Shame on you for trying to discredit a notable achievement with symantics. --Seinfeld01 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it is unfair for "James Barrett" to have any form of nomination ability since his bio clearly states he worked for John Edwards and John Kerry. His bio is a who's who of left wing, liberal viewpoints and his opinion is merely a partisan smear tactic against someone who helped a Republican candidate for office. --Seinfeld01 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Heavy metal music. Johnleemk | Talk 14:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle metal

[edit]

Made up musical genre. This supposed 'genre' is a neoglism of bands from both the Power Metal, Black Metal and Death Metal genre. It draws no distinction between the bands, except to state that several bands from the genres all use themes akin to war, which is already stated in all three articles Here, Here, and Here. A scene doesnt exist for this supposed genre either, and the term is not in wide spread use. The only band that refers to themselfs this way is Bal-Sagoth, and that is in open mockery of the term. Delete and redirect to the Metal Music page, as this genre is Neoglism, Unsourced, Non-Existant and Advertisment. Leyasu 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page has recently been deleted since the AFD. The page was in existance at the time of AFD. Apologies for problems this may have caused. Leyasu 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syntheway

[edit]

Vanity/advertising, not notable, POV got much worse after page flagged with advertising template Craig Stuntz 19:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Cheng

[edit]

Non-notable film producer. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mighindoala

[edit]

Seems farfetched. Delete Ac1983fan 19:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeybicycle

[edit]

Non-notable literary website. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Cassels

[edit]

Delete. Nice guy who's done some nice things, but completely unworthy of Wiki. Not notable, and arguably forgettable. One of 9 main editors for an out-of-print book? Owns a store? Is in a band? If everyone that fit such low criteria was in Wiki, Wiki would need millions of more articles. Airumel 19:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thyella Aigeiras

[edit]

They may be a sports team, but they seem non-notable. There are hundreds of thousands of local sports teams around the world. A Google search for them produces zero results EuroSong 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Andy Saunders 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 10:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godol Hador (blog)

[edit]

Correcting AfD listing no vote Obina 20:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shamayil family

[edit]

This is basically just family history. So they owned land in northern Iraq; merely owning land isn't really encyclopedic, and I don't see any other real claims of notability. If there are any they should be stated. -R. fiend 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens From Hell

[edit]

Tried to speedy this one but somebody kept deleting the tag. So I will try it this way. This is non-notable, and possibly a hoax. Delete Bombycil 20:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedied BrokenSegue 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pratik Raj Pandey

[edit]

not notable. probably created in error. text moved to his user page. Veej 20:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 00:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special Agent Jared Smith

[edit]

Bio with unverifiable assertions of notability. Almost certainly fictional copcruft. Delete Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 20:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge of the Sandman 1999

[edit]

Delete. Appears to be a fictional game and a joke article. rob 20:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. --Deathphoenix 21:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oambientone

[edit]

Not notable, according to WP:WEB Adam (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts in 5 years

[edit]

Someone's opinions about a football club. Not encyclopedic. DJ Clayworth 20:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


8-Bit Memories

[edit]

Reasons to Keep

[edit]
  • Keep as is. Comment Podcast notability methods need discussion. Not knowing how to assert notability is not reason enough for deletion on any topic. There is a hostile attitude on wikipedia towards all things radio, internet radio, and podcasting mostly due to a lack of knowledge on the subjects. I would think in general, if external sources (other than the website for the podcast) can be cited, then the articles should stay until some other way to judge notability is determined for topics in these categories. Randomgenius 04:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral comment I think there is a bare consensus that licensed radio stations should be kept, though it isn't universally accepted. When you get into media like internet radio and podcasting, though, you have several problems. First off, they're DIY media, which inherently is going to generate a large quantity of garbage and a few gems (much like, say, garage bands, which are wikied and deleted by the legion every day). Second, there's no easy way to measure such things -- there are no sites that measure podcast or webcast popularity to any reasonable degree of certainty (though Yahoo Podcast is helpful in that regard). Likewise with Internet radio -- you could probably make a decent case for anything included in the iTunes radio tuner, but beyond that, how many stations are there on Shoutcast that have no listeners at all, ever? Ultimately I agree with you, and I'm sure others would as well -- there does need to be a discussion on the issue. But what you percieve as prejudice is AfD voters saying "Oh, no. Someone else's pet project. Make it stop..." Haikupoet 04:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasons to Delete

[edit]

Yes, folks, another podcast wishing to be launched with a Wikipedia entry. Fails WP:WEB.-- Perfecto 21:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game News

[edit]

The podcast with the lastest in, what else, video game news. -- Perfecto 21:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. OK, young men, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a podcast announcement service. --Perfecto 21:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also the conversation between these boys on its Talk page.
  • Delete as per nom; WP:WEB violation. The 'talk' page for the article says it all, "grey area" of notability, indeed!  (aeropagitica)  21:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. PJM 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No way to assert notability for a podcast. Haikupoet 03:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Podcast notability methods need discussion. Not knowing how to assert notability is not reason enough for deletion on any topic. There is a hostile attitude on wikipedia towards all things radio, internet radio, and podcasting mostly due to a lack of knowledge on the subjects. I would think in general, if external sources (other than the website for the podcast) can be cited, then the articles should stay until some other way to judge notability is determined for topics in these categories. Randomgenius 04:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is a bare consensus that licensed radio stations should be kept, though it isn't universally accepted. When you get into media like internet radio and podcasting, though, you have several problems. First off, they're DIY media, which inherently is going to generate a large quantity of garbage and a few gems (much like, say, garage bands, which are wikied and deleted by the legion every day). Second, there's no easy way to measure such things -- there are no sites that measure podcast or webcast popularity to any reasonable degree of certainty (though Yahoo Podcast is helpful in that regard). Likewise with Internet radio -- you could probably make a decent case for anything included in the iTunes radio tuner, but beyond that, how many stations are there on Shoutcast that have no listeners at all, ever? Ultimately I agree with you, and I'm sure others would as well -- there does need to be a discussion on the issue. But what you percieve as prejudice is AfD voters saying "Oh, no. Someone else's pet project. Make it stop..." Haikupoet 04:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Randomgenius, though we disagree at times here at AfD, I shall fully support the creation of Wikipedia:Notability (podcasts) (or maybe adding it to the neglected broadcasting guideline). This might even lead to a {{nn-podcast}} speedy tag. --Perfecto 04:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Perfecto. I did actually start working on an internet radio project under my user page for now. I don't know if it should be moved into a real wikipedia project yet tho. It could be modified slightly to include podcasting as well. Either way, the discussion needs to happen somewhere. Podcast and podcruft are obviously synonymous in the wikipedia community already and that's extremely unfortunate. Randomgenius 19:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh I say bring it in -- Feed it to the numerous wikicritters who "collaboratively" turn it to something else (for the good, if that's any consolation). Think of a good name, though. --Perfecto 02:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as podcruft. Support Perfecto's speedy idea. Stifle 17:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stickman arcade

[edit]

Though I must say I'm pleased if your comic and forum has been running since 2 years ago. Unfortunately entries here must have been mentioned elsewhere before they can be included. I'm sorry, chap, those are the rules. -- Perfecto 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Mitev, Market protection of financial investments

[edit]

Apparently fails WP:BLP since the sole claim to notability is a book which does not appear on Amazon even after I moved it from ALL CAPS. Both author and book are included in this nomination, please state if you think one should be kept and the other not. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find no references to the book "Economic Alternatives" in google scholar, nor anything by Ivan Mitev. Nothing comes up about this book by ISBN in amazon, nor Bowker's Books in print. I can find no references in the EconLit (a database of economics articles, by subscription) about the "Mitev Method." The general lack of information about this person suggests original research, and most certainly is not readily verifiable. Delete per nom, WP:No original research, and WP:V. --Hansnesse 04:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dennis de Wit

[edit]

NN artist / vanity article. Editor has copied content to userspace. -- Longhair 21:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 10:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TWIN232

[edit]

Wikipeda is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It reads like a how-to guide. Optichan 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was boldly redirected. Ifnord 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Redundancy with Folk music of Italy and Popular music of Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineviz (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pork Wrench

[edit]

Delete this article on a webcomic which does not meet the WP:WEB guidelines. There is no claim to notability in the article and my searches for reliable, verifiable sources for this article (on google, nexis, etc.) have turned up nothing. -- Dragonfiend 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schweigmait

[edit]

nonsense about a place that probably does not even exist (see [47] or [48], for example) a.bit 22:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The real name of the place is Schweigmatt, not Schweigmait, and unlikely as it may seem, it apparently really is the birth place of actor Kilcher ('Pocahontas'). It's apparently tiny and hasn't even got a page of its own on the German Wikipedia, only a redirect de:Schweigmatt. Keep and move if anybody is willing to create a decent clean stub in place of this mess, otherwise delete. Lukas (T.|@) 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... a real stub like the one I've just added, perhaps? (keep) Grutness...wha?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Babajobu 10:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Becque

[edit]

Non-notable, vanity. WP:BIO requires that he be "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers", which the article shows he clearly isn't. Suggest he moves it to User:Paul Becque Oscarthecat 22:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Plus he's writing about himself... Malcolm Farmer 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense, vandalism and attack on Austin Peay State University. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Poop State University

[edit]

Delete a hoax Bill 22:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as an attack page. Tom Harrison Talk 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Zulfiqar

[edit]

Possible attack page. Reads like an nn-bio up until the bit about him being wanted in three countries, which Google suggests is nonsense [49] [50]. Doesn't seem to be blatantly false enough for deletion as nn-bio or attack page, though. Delete nevertheless as hoax. --Malthusian (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrinopets

[edit]

This is a substantial recreation of a previously deleted article, see the first nomination. I'm not speedying because it is not completely the same as the original article, it is nearly a year since the first deletion, and WP:WEB was passed in the meantime. My vote is delete, does not seem to meet WP:WEB. --bainer (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was nomination moved to WP:MFD. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Last topic pool

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

The result of the debate was speedy userfy, user subpage mistakenly created in article space. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FutureNJGov:FUTURENJGOV/monobook.js

[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 copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homestyle Center

[edit]

This page didn't quite fit into any of the speedy categories, although it came close. It is about an unimplemented housing project that was to consist of 25 homes. There is no indication of notability, and it doesn't appear very interesting or encyclopedic. I favor delete. RJH 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 10:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emack

[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion by Dunemaire with the reason: "It's an article in Portuguese about a non-notable website of a Presbyterian college in Brasil." CSD A7 does not cover websites, but I see no claim that this would meet WP:WEB. Thus delete. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to McJob. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flipping burgers

[edit]

this nomination for deletion was not completed so I am giving a reason.Delete unencyclopedic Bill 23:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

feh, i just boldly redirected it as above. nothing to see here. Derex 23:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Babajobu 10:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Colonization

[edit]

Delete as OR, unverifiable speculation, crystal ball. Doctor Whom 23:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as link spamming/nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 23:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crackahs

[edit]

Delete as non-notable website. The gaming clan has only 4 members, so it doesn't seem important. King of Hearts | (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak! Hey, we gotta start somewhere! Adinsx88 | (talk)

"doesn't seem important"? Get a life. Obviously you didn't read the Wiki definition of a gaming clan. Right on the page it clearly states "These range from groups of a few friends to 1000-person organizations"

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Babajobu 10:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-scarcity economics

[edit]
now redirected

This is a neologism. Google shows only 60 distinct hits. Apparently it is a phrase uttered by Cory Doctorow. From an economic perspective, this phrase is sheer nonsense (I'm an econ prof), and it is certainly not used in the profession. The article lists a few examples of near-zero marginal cost of production, an important and well-studied economic phenomenon. However, a techno-hipster neologism of no widespread use is not the place for a discussion of those issues. Also, this content is not a useful basis for such an article, it's just a couple of examples. Should this be deleted, I would be willing to write a proper economic article on this issue. (I usually avoid writing economics articles, because that's what I call work.) I have contacted the original author asking for some evidence that this term is notable, but received no reply. Derex 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am reasonably certain the phrase predates his usage. Post scarcity is used in my 1995 Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Although as I see post-scarcity comes out blue this can be deleted after all or possibly merged.--T. Anthony 00:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a redirect to that works for me, as it is quite clear about the sci-fi context. What worried me was seeing wikipedia used as a platform to spread this nonsense as a term about our actual economy (as it was written). I'll just redirect then, as the objection was mine, and that's a perfectly reasonable resolution. Derex 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not a neologism; I heard the term as far back as 1971. It apparently fell out of fashion after the mid-70s oil shocks demonstrated that we weren't headed for a post-scarcity economy anytime soon. But it certainly was influential in some circles; one guy who believed in, talked about, and apparently acted on the concept was Mitch Kapor. Monicasdude 01:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, Kapor got mighty rich off something that wasn't scarce; wish I could figure out how to do that (economist joke about defn of scarcity). He wasn't the first either, guys like Ernest Hemingway and William Shakespeare did the same thing a long time before. Anyway, I didn't say the term "post scarcity" was a neologism, because I didn't look it up. "Post-scarcity economics" is, or at least it's a oldogism that hasn't been used in a long time per google. My point is that this is certainly not a branch, school, or tradition of economics as a science. It's fine as a sci-fi term. It may even be a notable "popular economics" term, though google thinks otherwise. If someone can properly source this article as being of some notability, I'll concede. I don't want to sound high-handed or snotty here, but frankly this is the sort of junk article that makes experts doubt the credibility of wikipedia; it made me cringe anyway. Derex 01:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd say it's purely "sci-fi", but it is by definition highly speculative. There's no solid reason to think we'll reach a point where scarcity of all kinds will vanish.--T. Anthony 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kyle Paradox

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Self-admitted original research; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Ifnord 04:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cohan

[edit]
  • This is a vanity page. Person is not someone of note, inappropriate for Wikipedia. As evidence, Technorati lists only 2 blogs as linking to author's blog. Babson 23:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Babson's three edits are all related to this AfD. Unusually zippy discovery of AfD for a new user.
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 18:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that the page was created, essentialy whole, by an IP address that's never edited any other entries. That IP resolves to a cable modem in Mass., consistent with the subject's location. Looks to be a vanity page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.7.202 (talk • contribs) .
  • Who is this guy? Appearing in a few magazines and on TV once or twice doesn't make you all that noteworthy. I'd say delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.219.46 (talk • contribs) .
  • Speedy keep, author of 7 books, amazon.com gives 23 results for Peter S. Cohan, first page of google results for the name gives an article in Washington Times written about him, 5 hits on google news. Also, nominator's first edit and seemingly a bad-faith nomination, since the whole article doesn't even mention the person having a blog. - Bobet 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, this is a vanity page, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.118.63 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy keep and expand per Bobet. Fetofs 12:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep can only happen if there are no other votes to delete and (the nominator withdraws or the nomination was in bad faith or disruptive, or the nomination was in violation of WP:POINT). Please choose another vote. Stifle 16:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of this article please, clearly a vanity page.
  • Keep, suspicious nom, given my note above and the multiple IP users encouraging deletion. Would be speedy keep, but this might, somehow, be a good-faith nomination. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 18:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, original AfD tag was placed[52] from an IP address[53] at the college listed as Cohan's place of employment. Almost certainly pov nom. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 18:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vga transfer of data color over the cable

[edit]

Untranslated for two weeks on WP:PNT. Discussion from there below. Kusma (討論) 23:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains scanned pictures with foreign text, possibly Croatian/Serbian (or Slovenian?). Na sliki je napisan RGB zapis slike in je prikazan za eno samo linijo ... Austrian 14:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's Slovene. That is all the help I can provide I'm afraid. KolyaFrankovich 14:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep -- article has been translated. Kusma (討論) 22:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Đặng Hữu Phúc

[edit]

Untranslated for two weeks on WP:PNT. Entry from there below. Kusma (討論) 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese. — TheKMantalk 06:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 10:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (bluegrass musician)

[edit]

Three external links are crammed into this one sentence article. Created by a user whose primary edits are inserting external links. Besides all that, Google search turns up 718 hits. Mrtea (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. A Google search on "John Moore mandolin bluegrass" indicates that Moore has established notability as a bluegrass musician. Article needs expanding. (I tagged it as stub and moved the external links to own section per MOS.) —ERcheck @ 01:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. If working with Byron Berline and Earl Scruggs isn't enough to demonstrate notability, his allmusic page ought to. Or the multiple IBMA awards won by a band he belonged to. Monicasdude 01:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_31&oldid=1234127701"