< February 25	February 27 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson DNA Data[edit]

Detailed description of the DNA of Thomas Jefferson and his descendents. The issues regarding his fathering children with a slave seem to pretty well-covered and, in any case, I don't see how this helps anything. Famous people's DNA is not notable; this controversy is notable, and is already well-covered elsewhere -- if more coverage were needed, there should be an article specifically about the controversy, not giving very minor details about how Jefferson DNA was recovered and what sort of DNA it was. Tuf-Kat 20:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Sally Hemmings page discusses the controversy in depth. There is no need to have the DNA sequences listed in Wikipedia. --Thunk 20:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or, redirect to Jefferson or Sally HemingsJporcaro 21:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. The actual sequences and how the haplotypes impacted the controversy are interesting to those interested in genetic genealogy. This was a prominent case and a prominent example that helped to spwan an entire industry.Sandwich Eater 21:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it or merge it with Hemmings. I agree with Sandwich Eater that the actual haplotypes and how the Nature article made it's case is a lot more interesting than "some scientists said X" for those interested in genetic genealogy and this issue. Brockmanah 21:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect Why is everyone on the wiki so delete happy? --DragonWR12LB 21:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thunk. -- Krash (Talk) 22:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as relevant. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the information would be more relevant to a genetics journal. Green Giant 23:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information in the article is technical, but the topic is highly notable. BrianGCrawfordMA 00:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic as it is too specialist. Thatcher131 00:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article's not WP:PERFECT, needs improvement; that's not in question. Subject is encyclopedic and the article in no way appears to be a POV fork; it's also much more detailed than the discussion of the same topic at Sally Hemings. The historical interest of the information and its interpretation isn't in question. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge to Hemings article; seems harmless? Sdedeo (tips) 01:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable. JoshuaZ 03:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a clearer title, such as DNA Testing of Thomas Jefferson. It should be kept, but not under the current name, since there's more than just data in the article, and the name "Jefferson" is ambiguous. -Colin Kimbrell 17:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, verifiable article; detailed descriptions of notable topics should be encouraged, not deleted. WP has room for both breadth and depth of topics. Turnstep 14:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate from Hemings article, readers of which may be presented with a link to the DNA story or just feel content that someone else has looked at all the sequences. Carlossuarez46 02:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too specialized for the Wikipedia. --CTSWyneken 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 06:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Genetic Results from Notable Persons[edit]

This is a one-item list with no clear scope for expansion. I suppose it's meant to be a list of articles about DNA controversies regarding famous people? Anyway, I don't think it's presence in Wikipedia is useful. Tuf-Kat 19:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. Paul Carpenter 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Jporcaro 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it. Give it a chance to grow. There are also efforts underway to sequence Ben Franklin, et al. The results are sure to be interesting and a list is a convenient way to organize the data from the genetic genealogy page. Sandwich Eater 22:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paul. -- Krash (Talk) 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sandwich Eater. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Are we really going to have an entire article devoted to Franklin's DNA? Pagra shtak 23:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it deals with an article of a technical complexity better suited to genetics journals. Green Giant 00:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is not too technical if given a proper introduction, and is of encyclopedic interest. -- Reinyday, 01:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Sandwich Eater. JoshuaZ 03:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of ONE is not a list. When you have an actual list, make a list. MiracleMat 05:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the need for a list with one item, which is already covered better in a standalone article. If someone wants to create an article on celebrity DNA testing, that'd be fine, though. -Colin Kimbrell 17:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see this as an abuse of the deletion system. "Short list" is not a criterion for deletion. This article is topical and easily expandable with the information from Famous DNA for example. I will expand it as time permits, but even if I didn't, it's current length does not violate NPOV, verifiability, nor the ban on original research. -- Reinyday, 21:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: A list with three or four items is a short list. A list with one item is a fork, which should be merged or deleted. Since all relevant content is already present in the Jefferson DNA Data article and the search string is implausible, I went with delete instead of mege/redirect. If you plan to expand it, that's fine, but in the future it'd be better to keep things like this as a user subpage or a text file on your local machine until they're ready for prime time. -Colin Kimbrell 03:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, verifiability is in question, and it appears to be a list set up solely for the purpose of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 11:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Note: Verifiability is not in question, the Nature article just uses an older allele nomenclature. The Allele's listed are using the current, up-to-date system. Sandwich Eater 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiability commenter does not understand nomenclature issue. Single item list comments are already out of date, as there are 2 items and more will arrive. I agree with the poster who mentioned this as a possible abuse of the deletion system and an overzelous application of the word "cruft" (though cruft is a cool word).New Guy In Town 01:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Name one way this is an "abuse of the deletion system"? Tuf-Kat 06:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Neither Genghis Khan's DNA, nor that of any verifiable direct male-line descendant, is available for testing, so any details of his haplotype are pure speculation. siafu 02:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per New guy in town. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's next, List of Notable Persons' favorite colors? Sure, this is interesting information, but it's not notable. I swear, Jimbo, or somebody, is going to need to start up Wikilists. The article about Thomas Jefferson's DNA, at least there's a story or some research going on about it, but this? This isn't an "encyclopedia article about famous people's DNA", it's just, "famous people's DNA". Maybe we could Wikibooks this? CrypticBacon 13:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я)

Contabilitate[edit]

Untranslated for two weeks at WP:PNT. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be Romanian. I have no idea what it is saying. CrypticBacon

It's a page about accounting in Romania. How can I translate it in English? Also how can I mark it as a stub? --Robert 09:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 09:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it is a copyvio from here: [1]. The first few sentences could be integrated in some article about Romania -Economy of Romania perhaps? Dunemaire 12:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A8: blatant copyright infringement per Dunemaire's link. Plus of course the Two Week Rule. --Aaron 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. As untranslated per 2 week rule & as A8 Copy/vio--Dakota ~ ° 03:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CSD A8 per above. --Zsinj^Talk 03:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Bobby1011 03:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It can't be untranslated for two weeks and be speedy deleted under CSD/A8. One or the other, not both. (CSD/A8 is in play only during the first 48 hours of the existence of an article) . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedyu delete as A8. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as untranslated for over 2 weeks. Thanks again Adrian. Bobby1011 06:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pending translation for 2 weeks. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is the English wikipedia, isn't it ? Jcam 17:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. -- Krash (Talk) 22:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 07:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Blue (musician)[edit]

Not notable, has been flagged for cleanup since last month with little or no interest. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 00:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. Spaully 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that the article's creator is one RacheyB, this appears to be a hit-and-run vanity. --Aaron 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity and lacking interest. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Look out the saints are comin' through, And it's all over now, Baby Blue." [2]. Delete until she meets our music notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 02:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Zsinj^Talk 03:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a vanity article. Also, Google turns up few hits so not very notable. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Capitalistroadster. --Cymsdale 09:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but this would have been a great article for ((prod)). · rodii · 18:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 22:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Brain Evolution and Sexual Lying[edit]

Seems to be an essay of some sort, and Wikipedia does not seem to be the appropriate forum for its content at the moment. Seems to be introducing original terminology to the field. HappyCamper 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay and IMHO low quality one. Pavel Vozenilek 01:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research, poor quality, and the article content appears to have little to do with the title. Heycos 01:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT --Zsinj^Talk 03:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bobby1011 03:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Original research, not at all encyclopedic. dbtfz ^talk 06:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. What a dumb essay. Grandmasterka 06:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. --Cymsdale 09:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original Research TigerShark 14:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio of this. ergot 21:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio noted above and original research violation. (aeropagitica) 22:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I've added ((copyvio)) and listed it on copyright violations page. Camillus (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. (2k/9d/2ip) Mailer Diablo 06:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PuntoCL[edit]

I generally stay away from video game articles, so I don't know precedents well. However, this was originally prod'ed, prod removed. Ranked #18 at a gaming competition and having less than 30 players under its belt hardly seems notably to me. Delete _└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 00:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. VGclancruft.--み使い Mitsukai 02:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vani(ty)spamcruftisement. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --Zsinj^Talk 03:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable club. Bobby1011 03:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clancruft. Almost 30 players, huh? --Kinu ^t/_c 04:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable clan. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 05:03Z
Delete as nn vanity. --Cymsdale 09:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept when they were ranked 18 during the Cyberathlete Professional League there were 64 teams competing and they were in a ranking with more than 150 teams.
Kept The team is very known at the players community and are a very notable team at the Latin American scene, just look their awards...

Comment Both of the above keep "votes" were created during one edit by an IP. Michael Ralston 19:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn per above. Kuru ^talk 05:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kept I am the creator of this article, and I can tell you that Punto CL is a very notable team, first off the team has been featured at the National Television at Chile exactly 5 times (here is one of them: ftp://ftp.lan-z.net/videos/EstamosConectadosLatinCupChileyPerú.WMV), and at CNN during a CPL event. Also, the team has been featured at "El Mercurio" (our most pretigious newspaper at Chile, just with that I say that they are known outside gaming, and also you can see them featured several times at the MFAVP CPL coverage, and last I must say that I have no relation with the team. You can ask the Catch-Gamer (ranked #10 worldwide) their about their skills or you can ask every single informed gamer at GotFrag, SoGamed, or any community abput them and I assure you that they will know them AVeRY! 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete random video game clan. This sort of information belongs on their own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle 11:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AVeRY. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia MUD[edit]

Delete non-notable spamvertisement. dBed on 2/21 by Atarti2600tim (who has had admitted problems with the pages author), but doesn't satisfy a CSD criteria. PRODed by CDC shortly there-after, PROD was removed by page author without comment. Now it is here. --Karnesky 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there more appropriate places to advertise a MUD like MUD Connector. Green Giant 01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising, not encyclopedic. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. -Phorteetoo 01:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Zsinj^Talk 03:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Green Giant. Bobby1011 03:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is Wikipedia, not The Mud Connector. --Hetar 06:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Cymsdale 09:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisment. There are better places to mention this MUD than in a WP article. (aeropagitica) 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, adcopy per above. Kuru ^talk 05:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By the way I didn't remove your effin PROD. 151.201.12.16 14:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you did in this [3] edit, and either forgot to log in when making this comment, or else forgot that you're playing the anon character and that it was the Young Zaphod character that created the article. CheckUser may have a huge backlog, but this makes it a little easier to show the admins which anon sock puppets are you; now I don't have to wait on CheckUser, I can just point out this anon responding to comments about YZ and referring to him as "I". Thanks for your help. Also thanks for not doing multiple votes in the same edit and things like that this time, like past votes. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as other users. Purpose of article seems to be for promotion of his other articles. I mistakenly was looking at one of the other criteria lists; it indeed is appropriate to prod and afd, but not necessarily speedy. (Thanks, guys who fixed it) --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rob 01:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hill school[edit]

Contains one line that may be of importance to The Hill School and is otherwise worthless. ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 00:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-direct, why is Afd needed?? Georgia guy 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't seem to be anywhere in The Hill School to put a single line about a single teacher (he would be the only teacher noted in the entire article). Guess that makes him non-notable. Also delete the redirect Dr. Henry V. Bender, which oddly redirects to The hill school.--Aaron 01:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, delist, now. Pavel Vozenilek 01:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 06:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Lemon, now redirected to Lululemon[edit]

No opinion. Was incorrectly tagged with PROD twice CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why is it incorrect? This is a blatant ad for a non-notable company. Grandmasterka 01:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're only supposed to add a ((prod)) tag one time. If someone removes it, you're supposed to take it to an AfD if you still believe it deserves deletion, instead of just getting into a tag revert war. --Aaron 02:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I think is incorrect is that it should have went straight here in the first place. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 02:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant advertisement. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a brilliant piece of historical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.148.37 (talk • contribs)
Delete I am the one who reinstated the prod. I apologize for that. TheRingess 02:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising; can't find evidence that it meets WP:CORP regardless. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Having the correct name of the company helps. Definitely seems to meet WP:CORP now. Thanks to ERCheck for the rewrite and references. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Grandmasterka. Bobby1011 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - the prod tag was removed by a vandal with a false edit summary "reverting vandalism." The deletion was not actually being contested - it was pure and simple vandalism. FCYTravis 06:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. If the Ringess is for it, I'm against it, on principle — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonofHearts (talk • contribs)
~~Delete~~ as advert. --Cymsdale 09:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AbstainI'm removing my delete recommendation after the revisions made. --Cymsdale 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, renamed 'lululemon' and rewritten. This is actually a very notable brand at the yoga end of the athleticwear market, as per this Google News search. I will do the rewrite myself, later. - squibix (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per squibix's news results and 100k on a regular google search. I removed the advertising -- Astrokey44|talk 15:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per squibix. NickelShoe 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has been recently featured in BusinessWeek (I added the reference to the article). Multiple Ghits, seems to be very popular, including being auctioned on e-bay. I've moved it to Lululemon. (The official company name is "lululemon athletica"). —ERcheck @ 17:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed additional "advertising"; included more information about the company, growth, equity, etc. In December 2005, U.S. private equity firm invested $225 million - looks like company value is over US$600 million; with retail outlets in Canada, Japan, U.S. as well as Canada. Number of outside articles, which I've added a small selection to the article. Seems to meet WP:CORP (see #1). —ERcheck @ 23:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. -- Krash (Talk) 22:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:CORP. Well done to ERCheck for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the rewrite, though it needs a "miscapitalized per article naming conventions" header, if anyone can remember how to do that. -Colin Kimbrell 17:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The template is ((Lowercase)) —ERcheck @ 01:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, that's the ticket. Thanks. -Colin Kimbrell 03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As advertising. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 00:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the rewrite. *drew 08:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's another (smaller) stub on the same subject at Lululemon Athletica. If this is kept, the two should be merged (there is mergable content). If this is deleted, that probably should be as well. In the event of a merge, I'd probably lean toward trucking most of the content from this article over to that one, since the smaller article is filed under the company's proper name. -Colin Kimbrell 15:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VT Productions[edit]

vanity piece Jim62sch 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn [4] vanity. -Harmil 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable advertisement. Chairman S. | Talk 01:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once again, someone thinks WP=classified ads.--み使い Mitsukai 01:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising, vanity, and

http://www.freewebs.com/vtproductions

Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 02:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing more than an unencyclopedic ad. --Hetar 06:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Cymsdale 09:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dlete as ad. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto. --CTSWyneken 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fortean Bureau[edit]

nn, advertising, tone of article bordering on vanispam. Google hits only link less than 840 hits, many of which are mirrors of this artlce. No list of circulation or notability found. み使い Mitsukai 01:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bobby1011 02:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Cymsdale 09:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn per nom. Kuru ^talk 17:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a Fortean fanzine, many of which also exist and aren't mentioned on WP. Delete as non-notable advertising, as per nom. (aeropagitica) 22:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thompson (researcher)[edit]

Was ((prod))ded, but tag was removed so I'm bringing it here. Violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL, and has been a stub for over eight months now with little attempt to expand. Either move to cleanup or delete. Aaron 02:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BALLS, WP:VAIN, etc. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC) On the fence. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be proved that he is a notable author. The name also appears to be a pseudonym but he wouldn't be the first author to do that. Capitalistroadster 02:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a better case for notability is made than "[his one work] has been published in many forms and length". Sandstein 07:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "The Terror Timeline" gives 15 200 google hits [5], is sold in Amazon. com [6], is prominently refered to in 9/11 Truth sources. "The Terror Timeline" and "Paul Thompson" together still give 11 800 hits [7].--Striver 02:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The book even sold out here [8]. --Striver 02:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Terror Timeline" is a very unspecific query, don't you think?--Mmx1 03:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's funny. I get just under 1000. All goes to show that google results are usually not relevant to AfD nominations. I have been known to use them myself in the past, but with the recent examples that I've seen, I no longer consider them to hold any weight. Bobby1011 03:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My nomination doesn't claim Paul Thompson fails WP:BIO. It claims the article sucks as currently written. --Aaron 04:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't grounds for deletion; it's grounds for improving the article via consensus editing. Review WP:DP for more. You may also profit from perusing User:The_Cunctator; he suggests that deletion of articles be forbidden, and his arguments have some merit. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It can be grounds for deletion; see my post below quoting WP:GAFD. I will go check out The_Cunctator's page though, and see what he has to say. (I will not, however, attempt to pronounce his username out loud, just to be on the safe side.) --Aaron 01:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but there's a difference between citing WP:DP and WP:GAFD; the former is policy with a strong community consensus; the latter is an essay that never attempted to gain consensus. It's not even a guideline. As for cunctator, it's just Latin for 'delayer'. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Paul Thompson is notable, but the article needs POV removal badly. I think remove POV, cleanup, wikify, expand. It is obviously a fact that not every person who claims to be or seems to be a 9/11 related researcher qualifies for an article, but he is relevant and notable by Wikipedia standards. How could this person possibly be less qualifiable for an article than Andrew Dice Clay??? That is unless controversy becomes part of the equation and then we see taptaptap on the delete button. SkeenaR 04:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. I am skeptical as to whether or not this author is notable, but in any case The Terror Timeline is more notable than he is. Any relevent information should be moved to the aforementioned article. Isopropyl 05:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete nn--MONGO 10:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as published author with an audience of more than 10,000 as per the policy. His book fluctuated between 30,000 and 40,000 on Amazon.com's sales ratings, and as such likely has the audience noted above. NPOV issues are almost never grounds for deletion. That's what editing is for. Batmanand | Talk 11:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Per WP:GAFD: If the text in question is a passage or section within an article that is otherwise satisfactory, it is usually removed by simply editing it out of the article. If, however, all or most of the article is problematic, the page itself may be removed. --Aaron 21:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems sufficiently notable. TigerShark 14:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Batmanand. Need cleanup to meet NPOV. —ERcheck @ 18:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Batmanand, but cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jporcaro (talk • contribs) 21:06, 26 February 2006.
Delete Until it is proven, verifiably and not just with unverifiable claims, that the author is notable I'll vote delete. Striver up to his old antics. With so many of his articles getting majority delete afd's and he be accused so many times by contributing wikipedians about his POV edits isn't it about time he at least get a block from one of the administrators for exhausting the community's patience?--Jersey Devil 21:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with the behaviour of Striver, please either talk to him personally on talk pages (assuming good faith, whcih you seem not to be doing at the moment), or start a request for comment on him if you think it is that bad. Please do not bring in your opinions of any particular user into this AfD. It is unlikely to ever be relevant; in this case it certainly is not. Batmanand | Talk 00:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that patience with bogus deletion attempts is being tested. Deletion is unlikely. SkeenaR 05:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article says nothing about the notable status of the subject, save that he is a world traveller and has written something pertaining to 9/11. The substance of the article appears to be a critique of the subjects' published timeline of 9/11. This critique violates WP:NPOV and should be cleaned up to conform to WP standards. I would find it hard to vote either way on the subject of the article, as it doesn't include any facts upon which to base a judgement. Could more facts be provided by the author or another editor, please? (aeropagitica) 22:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 23:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs improvement through consensus editing. It does not meet Wikipedia deletion criteria. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN UV --rogerd 04:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; notability is not adequately sourced; needs to cite at least one source "published by a reliable publisher". Terror Timeline is a primary source. "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication." See WP:RS Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a reliable source. Morton devonshire 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is editing rules, nothing about doing a article. With your resoning, we can delete the Bible article.--Striver 12:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and try, I dare ya. Morton devonshire 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funga[edit]

WP is not for things made up in school one day ~ Booyabazooka 03:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a neologism. Bobby1011 03:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per bobby. --light darkness^(talk) 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NFT (this page explains the "things made up in school one day" guideline, not WP:NOT). Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. The first line did it in. Wkipedia is definitely not for something made up in school one day.--Dakota ~ ° 03:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, WP:NFT-violating neologism. Essentially nothing more than an Urban Dicdef. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In all seriousness, an article with this title would better serve as a redirect to Fungus. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 23:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. I'm also protecting the page against re-creation. Angr/talk 23:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy factualist[edit]

Delete neologism. 26 unique google hits outside of Wikipedia. Was ((prod))ded, deleted, recreated by the original author, ((prod))ded again, and the tag then removed by the original author. Postdlf 03:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn neologism. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant neologism. Bobby1011 03:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism and oxymoron. Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-noteable neologism, wouldn't belong on Wikipedia anyway - it's at best a dictdef. Michael Ralston 03:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn, neologism, dictdef. --Aaron 04:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as unverified neologism. Superm401 - Talk 10:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Death Eater Dan 17:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism. Another part of the User:Striver's effort to spread his POV throughout wikipedia. I think we can all agree that the user has exhausted the community's patience--Jersey Devil 18:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as nn-neo. -- Krash (Talk) 23:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism with incoherent POV argument given as justification. (aeropagitica) 23:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. dbtfz ^talk 04:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism, though it has been used in The Guardian and the Austin Chronicle, but even if wider usage were established, a redirect to Conspiracy theory would be the most it could earn. Schizombie 20:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Colors[edit]

Wikipedia is not an English-to-French dictionary ~ Booyabazooka 03:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is an encyclopedia. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this is not a translation service. Bobby1011 03:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, translating or otherwise. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the names in French either has a disambig. page or article themselves. Redundant. Mceder 04:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a translator. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. -- Krash (Talk) 23:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what everyone else said --Bachrach44 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current contents, make name into a redirect to Flag of France, since "colours" is a technical term for a flag. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I second this redirect idea ~ Booyabazooka 16:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary, on the other hand, does accept these kinds of articles. Consider transwiki prior to deletion here. Rossami (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fupa[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Booyabazooka 03:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. Bobby1011 03:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Booya, I've seen people use this term on other websites, but it still doesn't make a good article. A redirect could be the answer (though I'm not sure what to), but I'm leaning towards delete right now. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that I may have tagged it wrong in my deletion vote, but it still strikes me as a neologism. I wouldn't put it in a dictionary, and certainly not an encyclopedia. ~ Booyabazooka 03:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where should it redirect to? Internet slang? Bobby1011 03:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. It does make sense. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more apt to add it to List of Internet slang, and redirect there... if it warrants being on that list. But I'm not sure... is this term really Internet-specific? And how widespread is it? ~ Booyabazooka 03:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it's widespread, which is why I voted delete. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've certainly heard this term as well, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia, as it is essentially an Urban Dicdef. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mild delete. The slang term has been around for a few years, and didn't originate from the article's author, but the article doesn't really add anything. Mike Church 04:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 15:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. —ERcheck @ 18:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nnn (non-notable neologism). · rodii · 19:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. (Dictdef, non notable, begone with it). --kingboyk 19:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn-neo. -- Krash (Talk) 23:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This term, to me, is offensive, disgusting, and demeaning. And I vote to keep it. Wikepedia is here to spread knowledge, not to judge terminology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcyu (talk • contribs) .
Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 22:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOM[edit]

Neologism... the article admits it... Booyabazooka 03:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a neologism dab page. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Makes not sense to me anyway. Bobby1011 03:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. The shameless blogvertising seals the deal. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article was originally a redirect to Opium, which is (apparently) sometimes referred to as "God's Own Medicine". dbtfz ^talk 06:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revert to version of 25 September 2005 -- intended as a correct TLA disambig page mervyn 08:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly reverted. Royboy crashfan

15:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/revert as per mervyn -- Astrokey44|talk 15:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simpliciter. No infomration here worth keeping. · rodii · 19:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is now (again) a legitimate disambiguation page. dbtfz ^talk 22:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a real TLA. -- Krash (Talk) 23:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under current disambig format. --Bachrach44 23:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. D e athphoenix ʕ 05:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Faiers[edit]

Non-notable, vanity. Delete Ardenn 03:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I googled "Chris Faiers" and every one of the titles, and none return more than a few hundred relevant hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Merge per the below. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Canadian Poetry Association and Wayne Ray as these are at present all vanity from Wayne Ray, with the possible exception of Chris Faiers, which exists only to support the vanity articles. There are also articles for all of the founding members of the Canadian Poetry Association, that should probably me merged as well. Bobby1011 03:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. This article survived a previous Afd from the same nominator [9], and this nomination was made only 10 minutes after the previous discussion closed. Nominator placed inappropriate tag on article so prior discussion would not be visible. Subject of article is clearly notable, founder of notable Canadian small press specializing in poetry. See related discussion re proposed deletion of Unfinished Monument Press (which also survived the same nominator's AfD effort) . Monicasdude 16:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Monicasdude. Bad form on the re-AfD, Ardenn. I doubt most of us are really equipped to judge notability in poetry, where even highly significant poets may publish with small houses. Unless we're prepared to say poetry is inherently non-notable, I think we should let this one stay--it makes a good prima facie case for notability in my opinion. · rodii · 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that Faiers wrote one of the more extensive treatments on the late 60s/early 70s hippie scene on Eel Pie Island, Eel Pie Dharma. It's a valuable source on researcher interested in that scene. So to this individual, at least, he was notable before I had any idea he had a Wikipedia page. (I've added a note on the CF talk page suggesting more of this background be filled in.) · rodii ·

Comment If Bob Dole were here right now, Bob Dole would speedy delete it!--64.12.116.197 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully he isn't! Speedy Keep as per above Jcuk 22:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. My thoughts from round one still stand. -- Krash (Talk) 23:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 apparent author request. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 06:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GRODMIN (film)[edit]

Non-notable student film, less than 10 google hits, no mention on IMDB, probable Vanity edit -- Aim Here 03:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I would suggest grouping this AfD with Jim Horwitz. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the author just blanked the page. Either they were distraught by the AfD or that's their way of requesting deletion. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Bobby1011 26.02.2006

Jim Horwitz[edit]

Non-notable student filmmaker with no imdb mentions, or any obvious net presence, other than his student film's page. I've put the film GRODMIN (film) up for Afd too -- Aim Here 03:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I would suggest grouping this AfD with GRODMIN (film). Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as merge the AfD nominations together as per Royboycrashfan. Bobby1011 04:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as db-bio, and tagged as such. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Blanked by User:Squish and tagged as ((empty)) by User:Bobby1011. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kessel[edit]

Delete-this battle never occured. If you check the Wookiepeedia they also had this page and deleted it. Also a google search ends up with only a few relevant results, one of which is the article itself and another website which sources Wikipedia as its source. It is a made up article which as been mistakenly taken as real. Jedi6 04:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as StarWarscruft. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with what ever book/comic/magazine/website published the story in which this "battle" "happened". Bobby1011 04:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge of this stuff happened, if it's fanon, delete. It's probably some little scene in a NJO book. Deckiller 04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked this isn't in anything. Its made completely up. Jedi6 04:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then Speedy G1. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax (or fanfic, at best). Alternately, rewrite to discuss the battles at that location described in the Jedi Academy Trilogy. —Kirill Lokshin 04:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BryanG 04:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in the canonical Star Wars Expanded Universe that could be classed as "The Battle of Kessel"; there have been a handful of "Skirmishes at Kessel", a series of "Raids at Kessel", and at least two "'Han Solo Pisses Everyone Off' at Kessel", none of which deseve an article. (Note, after writing this, I then decided to go and read the article) In addition, this sure as hell didn't happen in canonical New Jedi Order. Also, there is no General Luke Skywalker, he never beat Commander, quit less than five years after the movies, and by the time the Jedi came back into favour in the New Republic, it was the Galactic Alliance, and Tsavong Lah had less than three months to live. -- Saberwyn 10:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definetely, no place for false information here. Tutmosis 21:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Saberwyn's comments. A non-canonical fictional battle in a fictional universe? Wannabe-fancruft article, it appears. (aeropagitica) 22:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fanihoaxcruftic. -- Krash (Talk) 23:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a new one! -- Saberwyn 01:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On Wookieepedia, 5 trusted users unanimously voted to delete this. -LtNOWIS 01:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Unsourced article directly contradicts canonical fiction. --BinaryTed 18:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2006-02-26 01:50Z

Niesa Dewitt[edit]

Wikipedia is not America's Most Wanted Bobby1011 04:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, this should be deleted. Bsd987 04:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A6. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A6 per Royboycrashfan. --Aaron 04:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE; original research, system is not universally recognized. Madchester 23:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Winter Olympics points[edit]

Delete. Original research. Arbitrarily gives points to the first six places in an event. Pepsidrinka 04:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Merge per Mceder. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Points are allocated in such as way, as to move the creators nation of origin, Norway from place 13 to place 6. The other nations are hardly affected. Bobby1011 04:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2006 Winter Olympics medal count if anyone provides evidence that this "points" concept is used in any fashion by the IOC. Otherwise speedy delete as patent nonsense. ---04:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron (talk • contribs)
Weak Delete, possible merge. Not truly original research as some Scandinavian newspapers have used this in the past, but it does not really make it wikipedia worthy. Mceder 04:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. If it isn't it is not notable apart from the official tally. Capitalistroadster 04:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. I find no evidence that this "points system" is sanctioned by anyone or is considered official in any form. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, and merge some content to 2006 Winter Olympics medal count. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Need I even justify the vote? Original research; not notable in any case. Redux 17:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is the point of using a point system? Plus, it is independant research and isn't even official. I don't see any point (pardon the pun) to keep it. --Omnieiunium 19:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Very Strong Delete. The mere existance of this article is a violation of the tag on the 2006 page and debate over Olympic conventions. It states that no major format changes were to be made on any pages until a format has been decided collectively. The page should be speedly deleted ASAP. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 19:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research--Tone 23:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. --Bachrach44 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic is nencyclopedic and pointless. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 17:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westology[edit]

Doesn't seem to be very notable and doesn't generate any solid, unambiguous hits on Google. CrypticBacon 04:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn term and original research. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Bobby1011 04:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as rarely used term. Edgar181 12:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Contemprory" indeed! The name Foucault always rings alarm bells. Let's wait till it gets at least 1,000 times its current number of google hits. Delete as mere neologism (no, there's no originality and no research involved). -- Hoary 15:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism (and not a very useful one at that). I don't think that Google is at all a reliable measure, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Original research"/neologism. Article creator has same name as blog author that is in referenced "See also". From his 2004 blog entry: 'I have wanted to start a new discipline, which I had tentatively called Westology" —ERcheck @ 18:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google hits are not a good/reliable measure of "academic" popularity. I was thinking of merging it with Occidentalism, but the ideas are not similar. If it does not get the votes, i will move it to user page - SV 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn-neo. -- Krash (Talk) 23:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per remarks above. dbtfz ^talk 01:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 22:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calculus jokes[edit]

Delete is a Joke, worth BJAODN? Royal Blue 04:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I changed my signature. That aside, delete. It's not even funny. Royboy crashfan 04:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nome. Bobby1011 04:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. Not worth a BJAODN, though that might because I'm biased, as I've heard something like this before and wasn't particularly thrilled by it back then either. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, anything that tries to get BJAODNed (which in my mind, this is), should be consigned to "Wiki-Hell"! -- Saberwyn 10:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't drink and ~~derive~~ create nonsense on Wikipedia. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 11:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edgar181 12:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an math joke repository. —ERcheck @ 19:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could be a BJAODN but this is an old one. --Tone 19:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an old, unfunny joke; appears to have been written for BJAODN inclusion and articles that aspire to that low standard of writing shouldn't merit an inclusion in an encyclopædia. (aeropagitica) 22:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Grief[edit]

Delete - Not notable. An article about one episode of Arrested Development ConDem 04:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. An article about an episode of a television series is at least acceptable. Royboy crashfan 04:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many episodes from a wide array of series have articles. The precedent is there. Bobby1011 05:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is part of a project being undertaken here: [10] Someone should probably tell these guys what a WikiProject is. zellin t / c 05:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, but even if it stays, it's gonna need a whole lot of wikifying! ConDem 05:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, thinking about it, maybe i'd change my vote to very weak keep. ConDem 05:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Bobby1011. Qutezuce 05:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. I had my doubts about this article, but the precedent of other shows lured me in. At first glance it looks okay, but then there's an enormous section devoted to quotes, and it lists the credits for the show in its entirety. If we do allow this to stay in, please see a parallel at an example from Family Guy, where the plot is summarized (with spoiler tags) and the issue is kept brief. Isopropyl 06:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, the page looks pretty good now. Isopropyl 03:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 06:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wasn't aware that this existed, but it seems to pertain to the debate: Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes
Comment: An inappropriate attempt was made to close this AfD by Bobby1011 at 13:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC). There was no consensus to speedy anything. Reopening now. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The level of detail involved in writing episode-by-episode summaries for television series is too specific for an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 05:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty good article on a TV episode. We have such articles for several other series. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As has been stated, the precedent is established (see The Simpsons). The quotes have been moved, and the article is now a good source of information. --Leez34 16:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article looks pretty good, I'd say. Standalone isn't a reason for deletion, looking forward for the articles on other episdoes. :) --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 17:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename something like Good Grief (Arrested Development episode), to distinguish it from the popular expression. -Colin Kimbrell 18:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article looks great now, and the series of episode articles is shaping up quite well. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is one of a series and worth keeping. --Splitpeasoup 08:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Notable enough of a series to have episodic entries. youngamerican (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why was this reopened? Consensus was reached here on this issue: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. zellin t / c 21:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Murphy (technologist)[edit]

Not notable. Seems to be a vanity page to promote this guy's website. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanitisement. Royboy crashfan 05:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn (unpublished author) --Royal Blue 05:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information in article is completely irrelevant. Subject is not notable anyway. Bobby1011 05:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable if he's published, but his incident doesn't appear to have garnered widespread attention. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Violates WP:Vanity - nothing more than a blatant advertisement. --Hetar 06:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial local high school event and non-notable promotional article. Kuru ^talk 17:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person with an axe to grind relating to his High School graduation. Don't people have blogs for this sort of thing? WP:BIO and WP:VANITY refers. (aeropagitica) 22:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 22:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete & redirect to NAA. Mailer Diablo 06:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naa[edit]

Do we really need an article on a fictional world which is to be the basis of a future novel? Especially since the article has existed since August 2005 but the author of this future novel is still red-linked. JeffW 05:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VSCA. I can't imagine people searching for "Naa" looking for this. ;)Royboy crashfan 05:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Royboycrashfan. Bobby1011 05:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently non-notable. Maybe in the future, once the novel is published, it will be a suitable encyclopedia topic. Edgar181 12:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the NAA dab page. Failing that, you could always start an article on ... *rolls a D20* the National Academy of Arbitrators [11], or *shakes magic 8-ball* the Newspaper Association of America [12], or even *draws straws* the National Auctioneers Association [13]. But the dab page makes the most sense :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NAA. -- Krash (Talk) 23:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if its not noteworthy why even list it on dab? -Ravedave 04:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Danaman5 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Werkplace[edit]

Non notable organization. Google gets only 369 hits, the majority of which do not relate to this article. Also, this seems like spam as the username who created the page was "Werkplace" PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VSCA. Royboy crashfan 05:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content and redirect to Workplace as a misspelling/typo.--み使い Mitsukai 06:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability. Redirect probably not worth the overhead (would be a pretty rare fat-fingered typo) and may encourage a re-creation of the current article. Kuru ^talk 17:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. -- Krash (Talk) 23:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (A1) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 06:04Z

Horizontal christology[edit]

Single-sentence article on what I strongly suspect is a neologism. Googling "horizontal christology" yields 27 hits. Vanigo 05:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn neologism, maybe Speedy A1. Royboy crashfan 05:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per above. --Several Times 05:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a group with no claim to notability. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Club[edit]

This seems to be a very localized organization, of little consquence, containing information only useful to its members. Booyabazooka 05:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7, nn club. Royboy crashfan 05:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per ((db-club)). Bobby1011 05:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Bobby1011 26.02.2006

Possum Game[edit]

Delete. This is just a nonesense page about some kid's inside joke. Animalfanatic04 05:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NFT. Royboy crashfan 05:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Commenor[edit]

Delete-This battle never occured like the Battle of Kessel article. If you check the Wookiepeedia they also had this page and changed it completely. Also a Google search ends up with only a few relevant results, one of which is the article itself and another website which sources Wikipedia as its source. It is a made up article which as been mistakenly taken as real. Jedi6 05:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definite hoax. Royboy crashfan 05:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BryanG 05:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "Battle of Commenor" in the NJO. It takes up a single line in one of the novels, two at the most (Something along the lines of "Commenor has fallen"). As far as I can recall, it has little or nothing to do with Battle Plan Coruscant, which this artile heavily implies. Delete as fanfiction/hoax. -- Saberwyn 10:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for this is a piece of fan-fiction. Also, even if it were truly in the books, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, at least of sorts. In any case, it is not the place for a play-by-play of a fictional battle. This is the stuff of a fan-site. Also, quite offtopic, but the fanfic itself, well, sucks.Ljlego 20:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Shame on this false information. Tutmosis 21:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments on Battle of Kessel article above. (aeropagitica) 23:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. -- Krash (Talk) 14:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other people Astroview120mm 23:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fanon... no way the one line in the NJO could be expanded into this. --BinaryTed 18:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax or at any rate of no importance. i've consulted one of my friends who has basically memorized every star wars book and he could not even remember it. If such a devoted fan is knowledgeless, wikipedia is not the place for such info, true or false. Cool3 23:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 06:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glyconutrient[edit]

Glyconutrient(s) is a term coined and used by con-artists to bilk cancer patients out of their money. There is no such thing. Every last claim they make is bogus. Every scientific reference they list says something very different from what they imply it says. There is no way they should be allowed to use Wikipedia to try and give the topic more credibility. These charlatans repeatedly offer money support to the Society for Glycobiology and their offers are repeatedly refused because legitimate scientists would never allow themselves to be associated with this in ANY way. This article needs to be removed, and any opinion otherwise is self-serving and should be ignored. Stauffenberg 05:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and add to List_of_alternative,_speculative_and_disputed_theories. Bobby1011 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up as per above.Animalfanatic04 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. As a biological engineer, I'm quite offended by the lack of science present in this article. "Cellular braille"? And I don't see how a "glyconutrient" differs from a carbohydrate. The assertion that glycosylation is part of genetic expression is ludicrous. Glycosylation is only important when you're building a glycoprotein. The sentence about "glyconutrition" makes me want to abandon my career path and become a forest ranger. At any rate, if this article is allowed to remain I strongly suggest that we merge it per Bobby1011. Compare with thermic effect of food, which at least states that there is no source rather than making something up. Isopropyl 06:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orthomolecular medicine. I've just noticed that glyconutrients already get a mention on the List_of_alternative,_speculative_and_disputed_theories as Orthomolecular medicine. Therefore we need only redirect this page to that one, and no rewrite is required. Bobby1011 06:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with Redirect as disruptive to Orthomolecular medicine, pls see my discussion at Talk:Glyconutrient --12:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete per nom and Isopropyl. Most of the "information" in this article is completely fraudulent. Not "alternative", not "speculative", not "disputed", but pure unadulterated bullshit. Whatever tiny pieces of the article are actually true can be merged by an expert into Glycoprotein, if said expert feels they're worth saving. Otherwise, nuke with extreme prejudice and salt the earth. --Aaron 06:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An attempt was made to close this AfD prematurely by Bobby1011 on 26.02.2006. There was no consensus to speedy anything. I've removed the inappropriate closure. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia content does not have to be true; it just has to be sourced (WP:V). There are plenty of quack theories on the Wikipedia; it is appropriate to include traditional scientific viewpoints on these theories in the article. (See IAHP and Orthomolecular medicine for examples.) What's not appropriate is to censor these articles wholesale. It's also definitely inappropriate to ram them through AfD with less than 24 hours up, and then close them with a "speedy redirect" when there was no consensus to do so~~and I strongly censure the folks who attempted that.~~ -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of Bobby1011, he actually posted a note on my talk page explaining to me why deleting this article is a disservice to the community. He qualified it using the same logic that you are using now, and probably closed/redirected when he saw the information was already available at another article. Don't be too harsh on him; though he might have acted prematurely, it was probably in good faith. Although I disagree with the article, I am changing my vote to a conditional keep provided that it gets overhauled. Isopropyl 06:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that everything that was done was done in good faith. I think we agree it's better to let AfD's run their full 5 days though, unless consensus is crystal clear. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

censor? The entire web is filled with this crap. Search the term on google. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It could remain and be appropriately described which would only serve as debunking the con, and then it would be POV. Why should anyone have to devote time to debunking this? The "glyconutrient" crowd go out of their way to imply scientific validation where none exists. It is not appropriate to state something and provide a list of scientific articles as references when NONE of the scientific articles say anything even remotely close to what they are implied to say. That is FRAUD. The only reference you could provide for this is self-serving books written by the fraudsters or their websites. How is that appropriate? I just decided. I'm the second coming. Bow down to me. Worship me. Reference...ME! Clearly...POV. As is the term "glyconutrient" by it's very FRAUDULENTLY MANUFACTURED nature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stauffenberg (talk • contribs) .

These are strong arguments - for improving the article via consensus editing. They are not grounds for deletion. In particular, with your reference to "debunking," do you deny that "glyconutrients" are out there? No. Do you deny that books have been published about them? No. Since those things are true, why should you know about them, but not the Wikipedia reading public? You should also consider that not everyone shares your opinion of these theories, which fact is encyclopedic in itself. If disagreement with the content of an article were grounds for deletion, I'd nominate Nazism today - those guys were jerks. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the opinion stated by User:Stauffenberg is true then there is every reason to keep the article and describe all the opinions within it. To delete sounds like censorship to me. Lumos3 10:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have addressed User:Stauffenberg and the early discussions (found out after the 1st blank) at length at Talk:Glyconutrient. I concur with Lumos3, also I see a need for a general rewrite to expand and differentiate subtopics, probably through gradual evolution. --66.58.130.26 12:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup/rewrite. -- Krash (Talk) 14:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about the topic to vote for or against deletion, but if the mainstream medical community thinks that it is quackery, that certainly needs to be brought out in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 16:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and those knowledgeable enough to call it quackery should rewrite for POV. Preferably sooner rather than later. No need to wait 'til the VFD closes. moink 03:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harman[edit]

Delete articles primary reason for existence seems to be advertising Royal Blue 05:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spamvertising. Royboy crashfan 05:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bobby1011 05:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A blatant advertisement in addition to being non-notable. --Hetar 06:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 06:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete per nom and seems to fail WP:CORP. Pepsidrinka 07:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pepsidrinks. —ERcheck @ 19:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Sbohra 10:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete all. D e athphoenix ʕ 05:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite betrayal criterion[edit]

favorite betrayal criterion
generalized strategy-free criterion
strategy-free criterion
strong defensive strategy criterion (first nomination)
summability criterion
weak defensive strategy criterion (first nomination)

All of these voting system criteria have been defined by Mike Ossipoff, appearing on a few websites and the election methods list, but although a few criteria have found support amongst some members of the latter (favorite betrayal and summability), none have been prominently published somewhere, e.g. in the "Voting Matters" discussion paper by the McDougall Trust. -- Dissident (Talk) 05:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending prominent publication of the criteria. I had to do a bit of reading to understand just what the articles were talking about. Actually the criteria are quite sound and as far as I can tell, they accurately describe a few possible flaws in voting systems, but they are at the moment, border line original research. Bobby1011 06:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seconding Bobby's argument. They're a very good set of criterio, and I expect they'll wind up back in WP in a few years - but for now, they don't meet the guidelines. ("strategy-free criterion", the one that seemed most general, only got some 350 google hits, for instance.) Michael Ralston 06:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to vote a weak keep for summability for practical reasons, because we use it in our articles as a relatively NPOV way to evaluate the complexity of a system. I think the effect is described in many places even if it's not called the "summability criterion", but having a title for it is useful. Delete all the others, which are original research that hasn't caught on and hasn't been published. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the fact that summability is supposed to refer to an array that grows polynomially with respect to the number of candidates has AFAIK never been made explicit by Mike Ossipoff. One has to indirectly infer that from e.g. [14] and [15]. That means that either in the article the criterion is too loosely defined to mean anything concrete or filling in the gap there becomes original research. -- Dissident (Talk) 20:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given that "Mike Ossipoff" is not yet well-known enough to have his own page, I fail to see why any criteria he creates should have theirs. For me, this suggests that these are currently original research. Batmanand | Talk 11:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the less verbose article at Tactical voting.--MacRusgail 18:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make much sense in the case of the summability criterion. I believe it's true a case has been made that there is a relationship between summability and manipulativity, but it's too farfetched to justify the article being turned into a redirect to tactical voting. -- Dissident (Talk) 20:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as protologistic original thought farming. -- Krash (Talk) 14:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unconventional and seem to have been largely developed to push a particular type of voting method. --Henrygb 02:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I am in my third year of study specialising in Early Germanic poetry, and I can confirm that there is no such poem.[reply]

The Ley of Lothwell and Lupocaan[edit]

AfD This page is a joke. There is no Old English poem by this name. There was no English language between 200-700 CE and no writings in the ancestral Germanic exist from that time period. Reason given by User:68.34.29.11. Nomination fixed by Bobby1011 06:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete' per nom. See also The Ley of Lothwell and Lupocaan full text version and The Ley of Lothwell and Lupocaan partial text version Schizombie 07:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't those other two articles be tied into this AfD? Schizombie 03:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edgar181 12:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ((hoax)). Perhaps the author can provide a citation for this poem being extant and older than Beowulf? If not, this appears to be a hoax. (aeropagitica) 23:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax (unless it's somehow a misspelling?—no results on Google except Wikipedia and its mirrors). Note that the Old English language did exist toward the end of the period in question. Also, shouldn't the full and partial text versions also be up for AfD? Ardric47 02:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. -- Krash (Talk) 14:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this page as a joke, i wrote the poem myself, rahter proud of it actually, but yes, sadly, there is no such poem as Lothwell...etc, so please feel free to delete it. I had no idea if there was English language at this time, i just made up the dates. Please accept my sincerest apologies for any inadvertent predicatory happenings i eventuated.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ASUC. D e athphoenix ʕ 06:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BEARcade[edit]

Hard to tell if this is notable, at least enough to be included on Wikipedia. No vote on my part, just trying to see what others think. CrypticBacon 06:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Dominic Nguyen lamented its closing in an editorial on the Megatokyo site, and aside from that I've heard of it several times over from dozens of individuals. On the other hand, it could seem very much like arcadecruft, so I can certainly understand that if it goes.--み使い Mitsukai 06:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom. Seems to fail notability guidlines for companies. "Unofficial" vote for delete. --CrypticBacon 09:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ASUC. (Bearcade itself is not a corporation. ASUC is a notable student government which ran Bearcade.) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:10Z
Strong Delete. it's not notable. (I'm a Cal student and I know what this is.) if this is notable, then every single pizza parlor, bowling alley, and shopping mall arcade store deserves an article.--Jiang 11:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to ASUC -- Astrokey44|talk 15:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jiang. Pepsidrinka 19:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Quarl. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Quarl Jporcaro 21:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Quarl -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 22:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability, importance, and context. -- Krash (Talk) 14:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remis (Slang)[edit]

Delete: non-notable or verifiable neologism, WP is not a slang guide, see WP:NOT --Hetar 06:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. Bobby1011 06:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 06:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. If "It is common..." then prove it with references. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictdef already extant on wiktionary[16]. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To me "remis" means a draw in chess, and that is not a slang term. This one appears to be a neologism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn slang. -- Krash (Talk) 14:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luz Mosquera[edit]

I had prodded this before, with the reasoning "hoax bio made from (possible) copyvio by substituting "Paul Torricelli" with "Luz Mosquera" in [17]" but the prod was removed. Actually, the name "Torricelli" is still visible in some places, so this is a badly done hoax. Delete. Kusma (討論) 06:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 06:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:28Z
Delete Per Nom. -- Vary | Talk 16:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. And unremarkable, even if not a hoax. -- Krash (Talk) 14:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Edgar181 18:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Migrant marketer[edit]

neologism, vanity page. Author quotes himself as coming up with a term that only gets 77 hits on Google. み使い Mitsukai 06:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a Protologism and one that is unlikely to catch on given that it doesn't appear to be terribly useful. Bobby1011 06:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Pepsidrinka 06:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bobby101. Pavel Vozenilek 14:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently submitted by the coiner. --MacRusgail 19:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neoprotologism. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity+neologism per nom. Kuru ^talk 05:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable protoneologism. -- Krash (Talk) 14:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hababam Sinifi[edit]

Delete, context free nonsense Xorkl000 07:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edgar181 12:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, truly odd. Kuru ^talk 17:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for above reasons. --MacRusgail 18:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Borderline SD-G1. -- Krash (Talk) 14:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable vanispamcruft. Recreate only if and when the movie becomes notable. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 08:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I Hate About You[edit]

Non-notable movie, still in production. Delete per WP:NOT, unverifiable, and non-notable. Hansnesse 07:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Incidently, Luap, the main editor of the article, seems to be the movies main character as well, or atleast coincidently share the same name. Pepsidrinka 07:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per above + its an advertisement. --Hetar 07:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending release and substantial notoriety. Bobby1011 07:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Bobby1011 26.02.2006

Hafr Al-Batin[edit]

Not notable and not verifiable Xorkl000 07:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up but an article about a city of 650,000 is clearly notable and verifiable. Bobby1011 07:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and move this seems to be the city of "Hafr Al-Batin" (we'd need some speaker of Arabic now), a city of 190,000 inhabitants: [18]. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals also links to Hafr Al-Batin. Another source claims 250,000 inhabitants: [19]. In any case, the town is notable enough and should have an article. Kusma (討論) 07:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable --Royal Blue 08:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned it up quite a bit, so I vote keep obviously. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & cleanup per User:Bobby1011. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as real place with real community of interest. Well done to George Stepanek for the clean-up. Capitalistroadster 10:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands now, it is a blindingly obvious keep --Xorkl000 11:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cities are by definition notable. Batmanand | Talk 11:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable, and verification can easily be done with a quick Google search. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 11:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If random smaller towns and boroughs in the US and UK have their own articles, why can't this place?. — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 12:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ro-Guardians[edit]

An article about a non-notable fourm of a website. 906 Google hits. --Khoikhoi 08:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Keep Notable forum —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeezer (talk • contribs) 08:53, 26 February 2006.
User's first edit —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:16Z
- Comment - how notable? As I said before, it only has 906 Google hits. --Khoikhoi 08:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Perhaps not in the US but in the Malaysian/Singaporean district and it has a total members of 12000+. How can it not be notable? Jeezer
Keep Think that it's a rather good forum and worthy to be kept. Bombardment 09:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:17Z
Keep Notable forum of a highly popular game.DericStevens 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:17Z
Keep Fairly notable site. AlexLimTehChok 09:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:16Z
Ro-Guardians forum thread re. Wikipedia article —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:25Z
Delete. No evidence that it meets WP:WEB in having verifiable sources of its influence on the outside world. Capitalistroadster 10:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable despite 12,000 users. Ragnarok Online already xlinks to ro-guardians.com. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:27Z
Delete, per nom. 10:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The policy on this issue is clear. This is not yet notable or big enough to warrant a page of its own. Batmanand | Talk 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 11:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 11:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 12:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CapitalistRoadster. It's hard to imagine how any fansite could be notable, unless perhaps it demonstrably changes the commercial product about which it enthuses. (As for affecting the outside world. . ) While the article is written in charmingly loopy English (for me, a minor unintended plus), it edges toward libel at one place near its end (a major minus). -- Hoary 15:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Hoary's comments. I'm all for large, primary fansites having articles provided notability is established, but this ain't that. Kuru ^talk 17:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure, this forum sounds notable since it has a bunch of members, but how much encyclopedic information about the site is out there? Enough to fill an article?

The members of Ro-Guardians are known to be friendly, however we do have a few cases where members go wild and start flaming, insulting others and posting irrelevant/obscene materials. These members will be immediately banned by the admin for such childish behaviours.

Isn't this true of every internet forum? And how much of the section about Gameflier is truth/POV? Isopropyl 18:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB per Capitalistroadster. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable website / webforum. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 14:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn website and forum. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Daniel Case 14:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 14:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Crzrussian 19:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn as [{WP:WEB]] Compu terjoe 21:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn forum --Colonel Cow 21:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm starting to see a bad trend here, where people view Wikipedia as a collection of web links ("Hey, it comes up in Google a lot, so it must be notable! We need to get on there!"), and suddenly everyone wants to get their own site on Wikipedia. Not every web site is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. WP:NOT seems to apply here. --Elkman 00:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per G4 and A7 Gurubrahma 12:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haileybury Computer Club/Temp[edit]

Delete, Non notable club Xorkl000 08:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable or worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, we had a Haileybury Computer Club that was up for AfD a few months back for Haileybury College in Melbourne and that the concensus was to delete. If so, this is recreation of previously deleted content. It might be worth merging with Haileybury College if we knew which college was referred too. At the moment, it is a Speedy delete as a not notable organisation. Capitalistroadster 10:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - nonnotable club. Note that this is a temp page of a main article (probably the one that was deleted in the AfD mentioned by Capitalroadster.) From its history, it was created in 2005. —ERcheck @ 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, nn and previous delete per above cites. Kuru ^talk 05:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keepers of the Flame[edit]

No assertion of notability, documentary and filmmaker don't pass any google test. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 08:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has not been released commercially, nor been shown at a film festival of note. Batmanand | Talk 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable home movie. Not on IMDB, google finds mention on one web site. Weregerbil 12:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn per above. Simply a home movie. Kuru ^talk 05:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 14:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable Nigelthefish 14:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 12:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomi Saarelma[edit]

According to WP:BIO, "sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league" and "first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance ..., if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles" are notable enough for an article of their own. Saarelma, a youth player for Chelsea, doesn't yet meet these criteria. He hasn't played for the club's main team yet, and he isn't a part of the main squad yet. I say delete this for now, and recreate it if and when Saarelma meets these notability criteria. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 08:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in complete agreement with Aecis. Delete until he's notable. Jporcaro 21:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 14:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oldelpaso 12:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Angelo Altomonte of the Philippines[edit]

Only admins can see this but this is somewhat the same as the speedy deleted Marko Altomonte, which redirects there now. It has been created by the same user, including the redirect. However, the content is different (the last version was about some family argument over money; this is about Hilary Duff) so it's not simply a recreation of deleted material. Otherwise, this is just simply non-notable. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply non-notable. --Royal Blue 11:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Vice presidency of a fan club not notable enough. Weregerbil 12:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete If everylike like this guy had a Wikipedia article, I'd have one too. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 01:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an official in a fan club, even being the president of the fan club, is not enough to make someone notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 02:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 14:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Though this article is non-notable, this guy is really dedicated and has done much for just being a vice president. And note this he is said to be "very young". So we might presume that he is about 13-15. Though some are right that this is none notable. --Metta Bubble

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scotoma effect[edit]

Seems to be a neologism. Generates 11 Google hits. CrypticBacon 09:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Scotoma effect" as used within the current article can only be found in one of those Google hits — and the site itself is one I'd hardly consider to be an authority. "Scotoma effect" can also refer to the effects of scotoma (a vision problem), as seen in the rest of the Google searches. However, specifically using this phrase as any type of "official" name for the condition would simply be a neologism, in the same way that we don't have articles for "glaucoma effect" or "amblyopia effect." — Rebelguys2 ^talk 11:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. --Malthusian (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as protologism. -- Krash (Talk) 14:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, discounting votes from new voters. Sorry, AfD is not about vote counting. D e athphoenix ʕ 06:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wasted[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Fails the allmusic test. Article, I think, mentions only one debut album and reads like an advertisement for them and the other bands listed. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Listed the Wasted and Believe They Belong (updated by Gnhn 12:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

1. The career track record of Stephen Gaylord: while the Wasted only have one full-length and one EP to their credit thus far, this band is the current outlet for his recorded work, which includes four albums with Beef (a couple released and recorded on "major indie" labels) and four other albums with other bands. Beef was written up in "Entertainment Weekly," and Gaylord's a cult songwriter whose work has been covered by others.

2. I also was trying to tap the element of a net phenomena associated with the band which has a large reach. I have removed that element from the listing since it probably belongs more as a net meme thing than part of a band listing.

3. I have been a print music critic in the Upstate New York market for ~15 years. This is the most impressive/important band and songwriter I've seen the community produce during that time.

4. I am in no way affiliated or associated with the band or the other bands mentioned, other than as a community observer. They didn't ask me to list them, and I'm not part of their promotional team.

5. The Wasted/Stephen Gaylord meet this Wiki Music Standard: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city." In Albany, the "Upstate Wasted Bands" community (with the Wasted at the top of the heap) is well organized, well respected, and well known, and draws as well as anything else in the market.

6. This reference, Wasted in Village Voice Pazz & Jop, demonstrates how seriously I take this band as a music critic and contributor to one of the more influential American music polls. I'm not spamming WP with bands. I'm not trying to sell anything for the Wasted. I am documenting an important artist, as I have done before in other media.

Therefore I respectfully vote . . .

Do Not Delete --Gnhn 14:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom until better notability established. --MacRusgail 18:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Page does not violate any of the official policy directives listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT. A pertinent quote from this page states; "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Therefore, I am confused as to why certain topics, such as this one, which are verifiable and meet all other standards listed, have any reason to be eliminated other than those personal or otherwise prejudicial. I am unfamiliar with the 'allmusic test'; and have not been able to find any evidence that it refers to any official Wikipedia Policy. --Ksonin 03:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit. (see Special:Contributions/Ksonin) -- Krash (Talk) 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I am not sure I understand the "allmusic test". I'm a new member here and haven't been able to find a reference to this rule. Is it an informal one? (Could someone link to this rule from this page?) I agree with Gnhn regarding the artist's importance. The band is one of the most influential New York state artists north of New York City. The original Wikipedia article states that the artist's website is an, "important and influence-wielding online outlet for the New York Capital Region's underground and independent music community." References to the bands popularity in the Capital District, which has a population of about 800,000, abound. The largest alternative weekly in the area, The Metroland, has covered this band again and again. A recent cover story on the band can be found here: http://www.metroland.net/back_issues/vol28_no48/listen_here.html. In support of the "net phenomena" Gnhn discusses, the band's website (the stats are not password protected) has had 2,442,765 hits in the past year. I should add that, like Gnhn, I am not part of the band's promotional team. I live in the Capital Region and discovered the band through Stephen Gaylord's other projects (particularly through Beef). Jim Germaine 05:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit. (see Special:Contributions/Jim_Germaine) -- Krash (Talk) 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I noted on your talk page, see WP:MUSIC for the relevant notability criteria. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have replied to your comment on my talk page. Thanks again.Jim Germaine 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 14:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete -- skfl (skfl) 14:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit. (see Special:Contributions/skfl) -- Krash (Talk) 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up." --This is elitist and offensive. Just because I haven't posted here often and am not part of the 'community' by these standards does not make my opinions any less valid nor my arguments any less credible.Ksonin 03:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Ksonin's comment, and I certainly did not come here because some one instructed me to do so. I haven't joined/commented before because I'd never seen an article about to be deleted. I became a member to weigh in on the argument for keeping The Wasted article up. How is adding my two cents contrary to the spirit of this discussion? Clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.-- Jim Germaine 05:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe Village Voice list mention that Gnhn linked to seems pretty impressive to me. The Voice is not on the 'major music media' list, but you have to be fairly important to make the Pazz & Jop Critic's Poll. If you're not that familiar with The Village Voice, I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's to alternative weeklies what The New York Times is to major daily papers. (Unlike other weekly papers, you can pick up The Voice in other states and countries.) The fact that this critic is able to post his list there speaks for his authority in musical matters. And appeal to authority is what your listing guidelines are about in large part. I'd also note that it's the Village Voice that's often quoted in bands' press kits and web pages. Some of the other publications you list -- Exclaim! for instance -- are not nearly as selective. <a href="http://www.pitchforkmedia.com">Pitchfork</a> (which most certainly should be listed) or Spin or Rolling Stone, along with The Voice, have a reputation for noting remarkable bands.--Jim Germaine 16:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)208.139.7.64 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and protected aganist re-creation. Mailer Diablo 06:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Young[edit]

Bad vanity article. Apparenty this guy's a teenager, so it looks a bit like BS too. -R. fiend 09:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not see that it fits with Wikipedia:Notability (people) --Royal Blue 11:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's hard to tell whether or not it's nonsense. However, delete him for being non-notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 11:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bottom line: he writes a political commentary blog with a handful of entries. Not sure where he establishes notability. Kuru ^talk 17:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and due to verifiability problems. Capitalistroadster 17:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: assuming this is to be deleted (and it is looking as of now like it will be) it should be noted a page under this title has been created and deleted several times. This may justify a "deletedpage" protection, although two things should be kept in mind: the earlier versions seem to be about a different Matthew Young, so it's probably just a coincidence that it's been deleted before, and there was apparently a Bishop of Clonfert named Matthew Young, who I suppose would meet notability requirements. Though I'd be very surprised if articles will be created for many of the Bishops of Clonfert, so a protected deletion would not be likely to get in the way of anything. So page protection might want to be considered. -R. fiend 19:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unverifiable, possibly nonsense. I'd expect that such an accomplished teenager would have news profiles. —ERcheck @ 20:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty sure this was made up in school one day. -- Krash (Talk) 14:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Briskout[edit]

The article doesn't seem to claim notability --Martyman-(talk) 10:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userify Since the page creator is called Briskout I am assuming this is about his alter ego. (whoops just signed ) Grandwazir 13:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 11:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable as written. Since it is context-free, I'm not sure on userify. Kuru ^talk 17:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 14:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. D e ath phoenix 17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retsuken Ryu[edit]

This article is apparently linked to some kind of animu and should at the very least be merged with whatever spawned it if not deleted entirely. --Shuma-gorath 23:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: original AfD nomination was malformed. Re-listing under today's batch. jni 10:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable newly created martial arts. 91 Google hits, almost all from Wikipedia and its mirror. jni 10:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven unique hits, when Wikipedia is removed from the search criteria ("Retsuken Ryu" -Wikipedia). -- Saberwyn 10:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
De;ete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-27 09:44Z

Prakash Puram[edit]

Gentlemen (and ladies if any) I appreciate your debate very much, and cherish your vote "to Keep" my entry in the Wikipedia. It is indeed an honor. TinTin1107 is right in that my first name being very common in India and my last name being a suffix to denote a place ... the Indian version of the Central Asian suffix "-stan" or the German equivalent of "-baden" I think. Hence, for a search on my name to be relevant, you have to search on my name as a phrase within quotes. Regardless of party political affiliations, it is a great privilege to serve the Executive Office of the President of the United States and recommend ways in which the country can continue to improve its share of world exports or trade. My real achievement is working for Mother Theresa in 1971 some 34 years ago when she was hardly known to anybody outside India. I was her leader for the South India team of volunteers. All other reasons to be in the Wikipedia pale in comparison to working for this great taskmaster for 3 wonderful years. Once again, let me stop here and express my thanks to all of you for entry-ing me into the Wikipedia. PrakashPuram

Procedural nomination. This was marked for speedy (and previously deleted under A7) but being a member of President Bush's Export Council is an assertion of notability. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:57Z

Keep as notable for reason listed above, and has >59,000 google hits (although being conservative, maybe 5,900 of those are his). A member of a US Government-appointed body with considerable advisory power, that warrants a meeting with the head of the Federal Reserve to get the job, suggests notability to me (although I am willing to agree to disagree if others think the opposite). Batmanand | Talk 11:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash is a very common Indian name and Puram often suffixed to place names. So you have to search for it as a single string, and it gets 143 hits. But that he is a member of the Export council is true - http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/pec/privsectormems.html Tintin (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. - cohesion★talk 17:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If something has no Googles...and is not entertainment material, than we can not draw a conclusion. However...if something has this many Googles...it is a keeper. People should perform this quick test before speedying.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. I noticed this in Speedy deletion as an A7 non-notable biography. I removed the CSD tag from this article on the grounds that there were assertions of notability and verifiable material exists about this person. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I removed the speedy (probably an edit conflict:) I'm going to speedy-close this AFD (without prejudice) since everyone, including the previous deleter, is recommending Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-27 09:43Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Professor Hubert Farnsworth, though only the Relative Box isn't mentioned in the target article. D e athphoenix ʕ 06:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Professor Farnsworth's Inventions[edit]

Listcruft Compu terjoe 11:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft. Chairman S. | Talk 12:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 14:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems like a good list to have, at least to me. -Jetman123 15:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Professor Hubert Farnsworth, where there is already a list of inventions. The article is fairly short, so I don't think the intention was to break it up. Kuru ^talk 17:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is short at this moment, but it will grow into a much longer article. yes, there is a list on the Farnsworth page, but it is not very detailed, and that list is just a subsection. this page will be a full article on the subject which will include the episodes each invention is from and its overall importance in the episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linklewtt (talk • contribs)
Delete the list at Professor Farnsworth page is actually a better list. It has more information than just a name of the device. There is nothing to merge. Not-notable as a stand-alone article. Pepsidrinka 19:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're not understanding...the page right now is pretty empty, but I am currently reviewing ALL the Futurama episodes and adding info in an effort to put much more info about each invention...the other list is just an overview, while this list will be a comprehensive detail of each invention...please understand that it obviously takes time and that i can't do it all in one night...it will be finished by the end of the week for sure, or at least up to the page standards. please look to what the page will become, and not what it is right at this second. it is a work-in-progress at this time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linklewtt (talk • contribs)
Delete - merge back to original article, per Kuru. —ERcheck @ 20:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand or Merge as per comments Jporcaro 21:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would keep per the author, except I don't see a clear reason why he can't put this in Professor Hubert Farnsworth. I'd prefer they work on the main article, but I guess this is a pretty weak keep . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is already a list present in the Professor Hubert Farnsworth article, and this list does not represent an improvement over the pre-existing content. There is no reason why this topic should be separate from the article on the cartoon professor himself. Sliggy 01:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Gamaliel 02:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just delete the page please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linklewtt (talk • contribs) 08:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge. No context, importance. Cruft cruft cruft. -- Krash (Talk) 15:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. D e ath phoenix 17:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Holt[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On-the-job & off-the-job training[edit]

Un-encyclopaedic and unneeded. Listed as potential merger to Training, but a delete vote would probably be preferable. haz _(user talk)^e 12:10, 26 February 2006

Delete. Can't see anything here that isn't covered better in training. --Malthusian (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I stumbled across this when I was writing a requested stub (EKG tech), I was looking for a link for something to do with on the job training. While On-the-job & off-the-job training is crappy, that's call for improvement not deletion. I note Training doesn't mention the phrase at all. Ifnord 14:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with training. -- 9cds^(talk) 18:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The artcile on Training will gain nothing from a merge. Jporcaro 21:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless to training. -- Krash (Talk) 15:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was going to vote merge, but have included the material into training, so now delete. Kcordina 09:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article is included in one of the paragraphs in training. TheConsortium 23:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unibe[edit]

is this notable? i say it isn't Xorkl000 12:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. Bobby1011 13:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. —ERcheck @ 20:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. -- Krash (Talk) 15:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underneath the Arches (nightclub)[edit]

Notable? Google shows 62,000 hits, none that i saw had anything to do with the subject Xorkl000 12:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable nightclub. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Jporcaro 21:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 15:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Rob ert 00:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of International Baccalaureate schools[edit]

I've got slightly mixed feelings about this one: I think WP should have a good coverage of the International Baccalaureate system, but at the end of the day this is just a completely unmaintainable list. There are currently 1,742 of these schools [20], and the number seems to be increasing much faster than new schools are being added to the list. The IBO website already has a complete list of all the schools, so I don't see a reason to maintain an incomplete one at Wikipedia when we could just link to the complete one. And for the articles, we can just use Category:International Baccalaureate schools. - ulayiti (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:SCHOOL. Apparently no there is no such thing as too ridiculously unmaintainable. Bobby1011 13:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as good list. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, Good list, shows where some work could be done. Obli (Talk)^? 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, on second though, leave the list to IBO, make it clear that they have a complete list somewhere, also link to this new category, preferably via the IB template. I'm off to create an article on my school (don't worry, it meets the criteria :)). Obli (Talk)^? 16:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We can't possibly have articles on all of the nearly two thousand schools. Now, there's nothing wrong with having articles about these schools, but this list achieves nothing that couldn't be done with categories. - ulayiti (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know all about WP:SCHOOL, but I find the whole concept of giving each and every educational establishment an WP article a bit of an unfathomable concept. This list has no absolute point, to be frank, and it could be merged with the International Baccalaureate article, I'm sure.. Merge but a more important issue is the SCHOOL policy.. Can't it be looked at again? doktorb | words 16:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I think there is a use for this list that a category would not provide. For example, this list is nicely organized by country, state, etc., and a category would not contain that, unless a messy slew of categories ranging from "IB Schools" to "IB Schools in New York City" was created. I like the elegance of this list - a prospective IB student/parent/educator could find this list, locate their region, and find detailed information on schools in their area that offer the program. If the list were deleted and a category created instead, this would be a lot harder to do unless one knew the names of schools in their area or happened to chance upon the category and navigate from there. Yes, the IBO has a list of all IB schools, but it's not a very friendly search to perform. This list is superior to that. Yes, there are more IB schools than are listed here, but that's why this page is constantly being edited by worldwide Wikipedians. There is no good reason to delete this list; doing so would delete neatly organized and useful information and instead create disorder and inefficiency, so those searching Wikipedia for this topic wouldn't be able to find what they're looking for. Fabricationary 18:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean it's not a 'very friendly search to perform'? You go to the IBO main page, select the country and state/province from the drop-down menu, and you get a list of all the IB schools in that area. And that list will actually be correct, unlike the one we've got. On Wikipedia, you have to find this list, figure out which programme you're looking for, and then scroll down this 51-kilobyte list (which will take ages to load on slower connections) to find the area, and you'll get a list of schools which is incomplete at best, maybe even erroneous. This is far from 'superior'. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and I don't see why we should try to 'beat' the IBO webmasters in their job. - ulayiti (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The IBO list provides practically no information about the schools, other than possibly their location and which program they provide. At Wikipedia, editors can link the names on the IB list to the school's Wikipedia pages, which often present much more detail about the IB program at that school - for example, enrollment, success rates, specific courses offered, etc. I looked up the IB school from which I graduated on IBO, and their information about courses offered at my school is incorrect - thus, IBO is not a superior source in that respect. With this Wikipedia list, users can easily navigate the selections and choose the school they're interested in to gain correct, complete, and relevant info, often times more accurate than that provided by the IBO. Fabricationary 19:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per Obli. —ERcheck @ 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Fabricationary. Precisely because this IS a list, it allows redlinks, which highlight articles needing to be written, and it also allows you to put information into the list that a category just would not support. As it happens, I'd create a category as well. Jcuk 22:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we have categories for a reason - to avoid articles that are just indiscriminate lists. Splurging in information from each school's respective article does not instantly make the list any more useful. Proto||type 10:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Obli. -- Krash (Talk) 15:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have categories for a reason, and this isn't one of them. Lists allow for redlinks and for visitors to create articles which may not yet exist. Silensor 23:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a list which gives the location of the schools is far more useful than a category system which doesn't. Kappa 02:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per keep voters above. Samaritan 03:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this list is more useful than the corresponding category because it lists some schools which don't have articles, and arranges them nicely by country making it easier to navigate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please these lists are important to have Yuckfoo 01:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A list with merely 1700 schools on it is hardly "unmanageable". Keep. --Gene_poole 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would counter that the word "merely" and the figure "1700" could not normally be put together... The problem with the schools policy is the way in which it promotes this kind of listcruft. There does not appear to be anything on this article that could not be lost if a relevant category was created instead. doktorb | words 13:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Yusuf[edit]

Non-notable past Malaysian lawyer. Apparently he died in 1992 yet is the "national chief of judges". Googling Malaysia national chief of judges produced no hits. Hynca-Hooley 13:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, Googling does not really tell you everything. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Attorney General of Malaysia. His name is listed as one of the eight attorney generals ever for Malaysia. Pepsidrinka 18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Jcuk 23:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion would lead to systematic biased. The person played an important role in Malaysian politics. __earth ^(Talk) 06:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Earth. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 14:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. And Google can tell you plenty; you just have to know how to make it work for you. -- Krash (Talk) 15:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. This dude is notable in Malaysia. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supermposed fright[edit]

With 0 Google hits [21], this term is non-notable, neologistic, or both. –Sommers ^(Talk) 13:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously not notable. Bobby1011 14:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Kuru ^talk 17:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VAIN. The article says very little about what "superimposed fright" really is (the article title is also misspelled, BTW), the term doesn't seem to exist anyhow, and the only thing the article really does is link to an article on a brand name pharmaceutical. So it appears to be badly done advertising. MSJapan 21:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MSJapan. dbtfz ^talk 02:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without hesitation. -- Krash (Talk) 15:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Johnny Pez, if you want to move this to your userspace, you are welcome to send a request on my talk page (or to that of any other admin), and I'll be glad to do it. D e athphoenix ʕ 06:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Drowned Baby Timeline[edit]

this article is non-notable fanfiction ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable usenet cruft, and vanity. See [22], [23]. — Feb. 26, '06 [15:08] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
Delete nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 17:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alternate history scenarios are already in wikipedia. -- Freemarket 17:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Johnny Pez's space. Fairly well-written, so hesitant to delete outright, but non-notable and vanity, so it shouldn't be in the main namespace. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per LV Schizombie 22:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Interesting enough, but works "published" on usenet are not notable. Herostratus 04:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per freakofnurture, above Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanicruft. Why userfy this? Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. -- Krash (Talk) 15:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well written and presented, and an interesting read to boot; but ultimately, not something that belongs in an encyclopaedia. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 18:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --Splette 01:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very interesting to read but not encyclopedic. --Valentinian ^(talk) 20:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as vandalism. The author's other contributions leave me in no doubt as to the bad-faith nature. If anyone can find one good ref for a socialite by this name, connected with YSL I will be happy to undelete. -Doc ^ask? 16:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Boulting-Casserley Vandelli[edit]

Hoax, I think -Doc ^ask? 15:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. The only other Google hit was for an arbitrarily placed sentence added Feb. 8 at Yves Saint-Laurent. --CrypticBacon 15:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've removed that, and blocked the creator's account for deliberate vandalism. I'm going to speedy this as vandalism, unless I get an objection. --Doc ^ask? 15:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Up Buster (Arrested Development episode)[edit]

Wikipedia is not for short articles about individual episodes of unsuccessful TV series. Maniacgeorge 15:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Discussion on this matter already exists, and is part of a project being undertaken. Also see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. Please close discussion. zellin t / c 15:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This TV series, though having concluded its final episode, is not "unsuccessful". In its inaugural season it received 5 Emmy awards (2004). including "Outstanding Comedy Series", "Outstanding Casting for a Comedy Series", and "Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series". Per Zellin's provided reference - the TV series has an article and season summaries - so the next step is episode summaries. The nominated article is a stub, and needs to be expanded. —ERcheck @ 16:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with User:ERcheck's statement and the article has now been considerably expanded. - Akamad 03:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The level of detail involved in writing episode-by-episode summaries for television series is too specific for an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 05:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. zellin t / c 23:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of examples of TV series that have articles for each individual episode already. Qutezuce 05:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all substantial and well-written TV episodes. -Colin Kimbrell 18:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AD is notable enough of a TV series to have episodic articles. youngamerican (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Providence (gospel group)[edit]

Does not appear to meet notability criteria at WP:MUSIC. The only thing that comes close is that the group, or members of the group, have toured in various places in the United States, however this has not been "reported in notable and verifiable sources", or at least the article doesn't mention anything about it. CrypticBacon 15:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN, unencyclopedic, POV...this violates like every rule of wikipedia... Jporcaro 21:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable, unencyclopedic. -- Krash (Talk) 15:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio / nonsense combination. -SCEhard T 18:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David C.Thomas Esq.[edit]

Delete. This is pure vanity article Uncle Bill 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G1 - patent nonsense. An almost 18-year old who is the "first Supreme Magistrate Rex Superium of the Lunarian colonies from 2023 to 2274" —ERcheck @ 16:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per above. Should be fairly obvious. Kuru ^talk 18:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 19:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blythwood (TTC)[edit]

Delete. This page describes a ‘never revealed’ station, without citing any evidence of its existence. David Arthur 15:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Absolute nonsense. The section of track where he describes the unbuilt station not being constructed in the 1950's, wasn't even built until the 1970s!! I think this qualifies as a Speedy Delete for nonsense! Anyone disagree? Nfitz 19:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified. Karm a fist 19:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete If you travel northbound on the Yonge University Spadina line between Eglinton and Lawrence Stations, you can clearly see an emergency exit with a few tiles on it bearing part of the word Blythwood (It Says Bl thw d) Dsantesteban 01:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 11:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floatware[edit]

Prodded as Neologism with low Google Hits, Prod2ed, then deprodded by IP address. I vote delete. Jaxal1 16:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VSCA. --Aaron 17:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aaron. Jabencarsey 04:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 80.85.54.130 10:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) I vote Keep. because of the following: 1. The article gives an accurate description on what is Floatware. 2. Deleting the article, or similar articles because of "low google hits" undermines the whole idea behind Wikipedia, thats is, Wikipedia is about providing free, accurate and truthful descriptions/explanations etc., and not about "Google Hits". example: The extinct bird "DoDo" has low google hits, doest that mean it should be deleted?. The Free Encyclopedia "Wikipedia" is NOT and should NOT be about adding pages/articles because similar terms/phrases/keywords have high google hits/ratings. Adding marketing/commercial value to Wikipedia can be done differently, not by adding or deleting articles based on "google hits ratings".[reply]
Delete per above, and FTR the dodo bird gets more than a half-million google hits. Tuf-Kat 01:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleting as recreated deleted material NSL E _(T+C) at 01:08 UTC (2006-02-27)

VSF - FC[edit]

Playing their first season in the 8th Norwegian Division, the lowest division there is in Norway. Definitely not notable. -- Elisson • Talk 16:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 17:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Johan Elisson --Angelo 17:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see the Norwegian article... this is not just any club Arnemann 17:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is still an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability about the minimum criteria for including any football team. The line who is passing clearly says that amateur league teams should no way be accepted in Wikipedia. About the Norwegian article, unfortunately I don't understand what's written over there. May you please make a synthesis of the supposed relevant things which might make this article notable? Thank you. :) --Angelo 17:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Arnemann, I've read the Norwegian article and I find nothing that separates this club from any other 8th division club. Would you care to explain what is so special about VSF - FC? And it is an awfully POV article, the Norwegian one. -- Elisson • Talk 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per nominatior. That awful away kit should be a reason for deletion too, if you ask me. Qwghlm 23:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just discovered that this football club has already been nominated for deletion once, and deleted once, at another name, Vindern SF (now redirects to VSF - FC). See the prevoius AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vindern SF. -- Elisson • Talk 23:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mangina[edit]

This is just a neologism. Wikipedia's better off without it. Looking at the deletion log, I recommend we also protect the page since it's been created/deleted several times. A Clown in the Dark 16:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, serves no purpose. Royboy crashfan 17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I really did not need to see that picture.... Delete before it burns my eyes any further.--み使い Mitsukai 17:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of War on Portmanteaux. --MacRusgail 18:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as slang dicdef; urbandictionary.com already gives this a good enough home. As to the pic: My eyes! The goggles do nothing! Weregerbil 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't stand that picture, either. If you want, you can shrink your window and read the content without seeing the offensive image. Royboy crashfan 21:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is hilarious. My friends have used this term for about 6 years, it's not Portmanteaux...but it doesnt belong here.

If it's not a portmanteau of "man" and "vagina", what is it then? --MacRusgail 21:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Jporcaro 21:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and stop articles with this name from being recreated. Bobby1011 23:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No further explanation needed, except: man/woman up, Nancies/Norberts! Haikupoet 02:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, protect from recreation. Trolling. Proto||type 10:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:V. --Hansnesse 23:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it Wikipedia Rocks. It's true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.119.147.186 (talk • contribs) .

The above vote is the IP address's first contribution to Wikipedia. --Hansnesse 01:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: Originally posted on this page's talk] Mangina is a term also used in online games to describe a female character played by a male player. It can also e used to describe a male impersonating a female in online forums/chat. The one definition listed is not the only relevant one. User: 205.217.35.122

User's first edit A Clown in the Dark 04:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textLEAVE IT ----- If you dont like it, don't look at it! Freedom of speech, live and let live etc! Jeez

Yet again, user's first edit. A Clown in the Dark 22:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete --ImpartialCelt 16:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. D e athphoenix ʕ 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie Zwicker[edit]

Article was ((prod))ed as WP:NPOV but tag was removed. Attempt to expand the article has made it even more POV, IMHO, and has definitely rendered it unreadable. In addition, most of the wikilinks are to nonexistent articles, and it's questionable whether the subject meets WP:BIO in the first place, and he already has an entry on the Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11 page. Major cleanup or delete as crankcruft. Aaron 17:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VSCA. Royboy crashfan 17:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Cleanup is never a reason to delete. His merits talk for themselves, this AFD is a clear atempt to remove the artilce since nominator does not like its content, and has nothing to do with Barrie Zwicker notability or verifiablity. Bogus AFD.--Striver 17:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll leave it to the closing admin to determine who's been creating and editing a rash of 9/11 crankcruft articles over the last few days. --Aaron 17:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conspiracies_Guild#AFD.27s?

The patern should be obvious: Anything remotly resembling representation of the 9/11 truth movement is deleted. That is called censorship. Wikipedia is about adding information, not deleting.

Only a few article with general content is allowed, as soon as anything more specific is added, it is afd withing hours, not even giving the article the chance to develop. How is a article supposed to prove notability if it is delete within hours?

Just compeare it to the UFO and UFOlogy articles, they thrive, we have lots of them, terms like Black triangles and lots of writers. But as soon as a term or writer for the 9/11 truth movment comes, it is deleted with a totaly different standard that is put on the UFO related articles. how come? --Striver 17:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article doesn't have to prove notability within hours; its subject does. I could create an article about my pet hamster, but it wouldn't qualify as notable whether it was one line long or contained 10,000 words. As for UFOs and black triangles, that's a WP:POINT argument. The fact that dubious article X exists doesn't mean that dubious article Y automatically gets a free pass. By the way, the quality of an article does count for something. For example, I would probably change my vote on 9-11: The Road to Tyranny if the article was written in an encyclopedic fashion. --Aaron 17:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not true. First of all WP:POINT has nothing to do with my argument, its completly valid. Second, A valid article with bad content gets tried to stub level or NPOVed, or improved or gets a tag, not deleted. --Striver 17:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should be ashemed to AFD this articel only since it is ABOUT a guy that has oppinions you dont agree with. Why dont you go AFD Muhammad? Oh, he is notable? So, i dare you , say Barrie Zwicker is non notable! This AFD clearly shows that you are doing things in bad faith and are not the least intrested in inmproving or contributing to Wikipedia. --Striver 17:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it needs some major cleanup and expansion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as more 9/11cruft. I'm tempted to apply Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Minor_characters here; this person certainly deserves a line on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Isopropyl 18:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its obvious that you didnt read the article, so ill give you the favor of letting you read it:

He was a writer for The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Vancouver Province, Sudbury Star and Detroit News, and taught the Media & Society course at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto for seven years.

He worked as VisionTV's media critic since the multifaith network's inception in the fall of 1988, until 2003. [24].

He was also involved in The End of Suburbia. Just say "No conspiracy article on WP". --Striver 18:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Isopropyl or merge. Since Zwicker barely satisfies WP:BIO if he satisfies it at all, Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11#Barrie Zwicker is enough in this case. That entry can be expanded with some of the material from this article if necessary. bcasterline^talk 18:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He does not making WP:BIO? Are you kidding? --Striver 19:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another nn article...POV pushing nonsense...about as notable as a toadstool.--MONGO 22:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Puclished author, with an audience of more than 10,000. Also media commentator in major national newspapers. NPOV issues can be sorted out with editing. No need to delete the article. Batmanand | Talk 23:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. His notability seems to come from his efforts along those lines; I'm not convinced he warrants a stand-alone article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He fullfills WP:BIO and much more, he would never be even afd if he was a UFO writer. --Striver 01:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is already covered in Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11#Barrie_Zwicker. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No its not. The guy is much more than a opinion regarding 9/11. He easly pases the 5000 audience demanded from WP:BIO. I mean, omg, are you voting to delete mainstream journalist as non-notable?

For all of you that didnt bother to read the article:

Barrie Zwicker is a Broadcaster and writer who has specialized in media criticism since 1970.

He was a writer for The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Vancouver Province, Sudbury Star and Detroit News, and taught the Media & Society course at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto for seven years.

He worked as VisionTV's media critic since the multifaith network's inception in the fall of 1988, until 2003. [25]

And here is from WP:BIO:

The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list. Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.

Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage

Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers

Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions.

A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following

Name recognition

Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more

Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?

He fullfills all the above.

--Striver 15:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- See my comments below -- the quote on the newspapers that Barrie Zwicker was a writer for is taken from the Vision TV web site, and is not correct in my opinion. It is a big stretch to say that Barrie Zwicker is a mainstream journalist; I'm pretty sure that he's a freelance journalist with an alternative view whose articles were picked up by many major newspapers -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing on the page indicating that he's a local political figure or that he's received significant press coverage. As a corollary, widely recognized is very dubious. Nor are his productions well-known. --Mmx1 16:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Bio does not demand a 5000 audience. It says: "The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." and among them is the 5000 criteria. The flaw with the 5000 figure is that major publications have minor authors. Does everyone that publishes an article in the New York times get a pass? Including the local section editors, or the style columnist? If anything, I think it's a particularly flawed analysis. The New York Daily News has several million readers. I can't think of more than 10 current writers on their staff worthy of an article. The wiki only mentions 8 historically. --Mmx1 16:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per --Aude. Sandstein 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've seen Barrie Zwicker on Vision TV and read (although disagreed with) his articles. He's legitimately notable in my view. If you apply the college professor test (he was a prof at Ryerson in Toronto), he's more notable given his media contributions. This being said, the article is very POV: ~~(1) I don't think "he was a writer for the Globe and Mail....", despite what other web sites say. I'm pretty sure that he was a freelancer whose articles were picked up by other newspapers.~~ (see below) (2) Also, calling Barrie Zwicker a member of the "mainstream press" is a bit out there, he's clearly an alternative voice in Canadian media. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, please WP:CIVIL -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My error, he was a staff writer at the Toronto Star -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 23:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counting trees[edit]

Neologism, possibly protologism. No easy way to discern if this is true or not and in any case, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. み使い Mitsukai 17:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Info should be sent to the Gulag page or similar subject. --MacRusgail 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, unless someone can Expand, which would prove the nom worng. Jporcaro 21:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it were real it should at least link to the russian page and give the original phrase in russian cyrillic and a transliteration. Bobby1011 00:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man Your Spacesuits[edit]

No sources, no hope of sources, no evidence of currency, little hope of that either. If not complete bollocks it almost certainly fails WP:NFT. Just zis Guy you know? 17:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy goodbye out the wrong side of the airlock. Isopropyl 18:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Reading it again, this thing is pretty funny. Recommending we BJAODN the article! Isopropyl 18:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as backaaaaagggh ooooooooooooooooeeep. Weregerbil 18:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable game. Bobby1011 00:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Futurewise[edit]

nn organization. Organization, depending on Google searches, will gain anywhere from 15000 to 108 hits (for "Futurewise ecological organization". み使い Mitsukai 17:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any useful information can be added to sustainable development, although there isn't anything useful that I can see. Isopropyl 18:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. Bobby1011 00:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Papapayeah[edit]

Hoax on the caca --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bobby1011 00:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 19:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S. Treb Farm and Grains[edit]

Not notable, probably vanity, orphaned. ed g2s • talk 18:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ed g2s • talk 18:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Bobby1011 00:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of mugshots collected by The Smoking Gun[edit]

Unnecessary list of mugshots on The Smoking Gun website. There's no real encyclopedic purpose to keeping this information here; we have a link to the website on its article, and viewers can see for themselves what mugshots are there. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Additionally, I recommend delete instead of merge because this information has no place in The Smoking Gun article either. —Cleared as filed. 18:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Yikes, we're now into the business of indexing other organisations' websites are we?! --kingboyk 19:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Smoking Gun. Apparently, kingboyk ;-) Karm a fist 19:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kingboyk. —ERcheck @ 21:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kingboyk. Here's an idea: if people want to see what's on the Smoking Gun, they can go to The Smoking Gun. Keeping a catalog here is pointless. Fan1967 22:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- redundant. Haikupoet 02:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, TSG's index works just fine. Kuru ^talk 05:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete isn't this as much a copyvio as the lists of Time Magazine's 100 whoevers? Carlossuarez46 02:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, WP:POINT nom, & WP:SNOW vote — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JenniCam[edit]

A girl with a webcam? Yeah, that's unique... If this is a meme, other memes are memes... that may not make sense at first, but look at the meme purge going on and you'll see what I mean. The fact that other, UNIQUE, memes which were just as or almost as popular as this dime a dozen meme, got deleted, should invalidate this article's entry RudyLucius 18:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If BBC took the time to write an article about this, it seems like notability should not be an issue. Pepsidrinka 18:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable internet phenomenon, even if it is no longer active Heycos 18:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are approximately one bajillion google hits for this, such as [26]. Isopropyl 18:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as widely noted early webcam and AfD to illustrate a point. Please read WP:POINT. Weregerbil 18:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I have heard of it, even if I think it is an example of a "sick" culture. The article needs a lot of pruning though. Keep it short in this case! --MacRusgail 18:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. A pretty clear case of WP:POINT. (Background info. for the unaware: Talk:Brian Peppers). Hynca-Hooley 19:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Extremely weak keep. As much of a worthless lowlife as Jenni is, the site was notable in its day. I fully admit, however, that I'm only voting to keep it on principle, and I wouldn't shed a tear if the article magically disappeared tomorrow. There are few people on Earth less deserving of any more publicity than this woman. --Aaron 19:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This isn't "A girl with a webcam," this is "THE girl with a webcam," the original (and still champeen) camgirl. Sheesh.
Strong keep Notable, very early cam. That a million people followed afterwards makes Jenni more not less notable. Georgewilliamherbert 21:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A girl with a webcam? Not unique. A girl with a webcam in 1996? Pretty damn unique. Keep. David | Talk 21:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep obvously. There's also lots of academic references available. Dlyons493 Talk 21:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. I know little about this practice, but even I've heard of this one. Fan1967 22:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep She's a pioneer in the webcam and reality show business. Would you delete entries about other pioneers, like the Dumont broadcasting network, or for things like BetaMax? I don't think so. Keep it here.
Weak Keep Might as well close this. It's got enough little picayune things to make it different from other webcams. Karm a fist 22:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; WP:POINT / WP:SNOW — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Phenomenon[edit]

Delete on principle. If wiki admins are going to go after individual, valid memes, then there's no sense in even recognizing them in Wiki. Either we recognize memes with a set criteria that they must meet for inclusion, or we eliminate their recognition in wiki altogether.RudyLucius 18:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. not totally sure what you're getting at, but i think that a page like this is fully necessary.Joeyramoney 18:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I am getting at is that wiki admins are playing god in deciding which memes they want to stay on wiki and which ones they dont, almost arbitrarily. Pokemon Kid had over 13,000 google hits and was featured on IFILM, eBaums world, and several other notable websites, but was deleted in spite of a majority vote to keep because wiki admins wanted it gone. And just look at the fight over Brian Peppers. This is a matter of principle.RudyLucius 18:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the way to dispute a previous AfD. Go to deletion review is you have a problem with the deletion of Pokemon Kid. Furthermore, note that AfD is no longer "Votes for deletion" and is now a discussion on whether an article should be kept. Pepsidrinka 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as AfD to illustrate a point. Please read don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Weregerbil 18:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per above Heycos 18:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Delete on principle" is not a valid argument. This is a bad faith nomination, although the page could use some cleaning up. I don't know if it's necessary to include every meme that has ever existed. Isopropyl 18:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:POINT nomination and valid article. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Adrian. Pepsidrinka 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending some radical pruning. --MacRusgail 19:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. A pretty clear case of WP:POINT. (Background info. for the unaware: Talk:Brian Peppers). Hynca-Hooley 19:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy keep. When the nominator openly admits his nomination is a WP:POINT violation, there's no reason to even consider it. --Aaron 19:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, there should probably be criteria, but just deleting this does not solve anything. There needs to be some limit set up along the lines of "number of Google hits" or (in the case of a movie, etc.) "number of views". --CharonM72 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. If this page is a source of problems, make a requirement list, deletion isn't the answer - this article is vast and covers quite a large part of internet history. --x1987x 22:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Psy guy ^Talk 19:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kimbo Slice[edit]

Two P2P videos? There are other internet memes which were far more accessible and availible which got deleted. If they were invalid, surely a P2P video is invalid RudyLucius 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Or is there a "weak speedy keep" :-) Part of a trio of bad faith AfD nominations to illustrate a WP:POINT. I haven't heard of this Internet meme before, but google gives 14,300 hits (seem to be about this thing) which is not entirely non-notable. The other two WP:POINT AfDs were speedily kept but this sits on the fence - which I guess defaults to keep. Weregerbil 12:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am an avid user of wikipedia, screw creating an account, this is blasphemous. I have seen this video(s) many times and it IS a meme. Deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.21.52 (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feketepont[edit]

Non-notable company. A service that burns MP3 CD-ROMs, has released one CD. Was prodded, tag deleted without comment. Weregerbil 18:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 18:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn per nom. Kuru ^talk 20:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Weregerbil. Bobby1011 00:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Rob ert 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia logo[edit]

This page should be moved from the mainspace to a Wikipedia:Internal page. It is only fair we apply the same exacting standards of inclusion on ourselves. If there were, say, an Amazon.com logo article, there would be a forced merge. Someone argues that there are a lot of Google hits for "wikipedia logo" (300k+), but typical of all Internet brands--"Amazon logo" gets 3 mil+--the numbers are high for whatever user. move into the internal space

Lotsofissues 18:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. We absolutely should apply our own standards to articles about Wikipedia and Wikipedia-related phenomenon. Wikipedia is the premiere internet encyclopedia and one of the most popular websites on the internet by traffic. It is also an internet phenomenon. The article as written uses an encyclopedic tone and is clearly meant as a complement to the article Wikipedia. It's not a project: namespace or meta article by any stretch of the imagination as far as I am concerned and it's certainly not something we should be wanting to delete. --kingboyk 19:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent of Google logo. Pepsidrinka 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article appears as valid an inclusion as the Google logo article. Both are notable Internet brands and resources, their respective histories are also notable for researchers. (aeropagitica) 23:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Google logo article is about a tradition--not just a logo. Google is also the number 1 Internet brand, far above our notoriety. Lotsofissues 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you intending to vote either way, or simply comment? -- user:zanimum

Per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, "Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise." In other words, User:Lotsofissues voted delete simply by nominating the article for deletion and not saying it wasn't to be construed as a delete vote. Angr/talk 23:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Google logo. If there are not articles on other massively recognisable logos, then there should be. Proto||type 10:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see little relation to the Google logo, which is iconic to the entire internet. Wikipedia logo is really only iconic to its editors (that's us!!). Move article to Wikipedia namespace and remove links to the same per WP:ASR. -- Krash (Talk) 15:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with History of Wikipedia. Would fit in better there. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 17:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I like that idea better. Merge per Andylkl. -- Krash (Talk) 18:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine in principle, but isn't that article in danger of growing too large? --kingboyk 20:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose the Wikipedia logo article could be trimmed and compressed at least a little, and the logos be inserted within the gallery tags, then it would do fine there. :) --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 08:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To unimportant for inclusion in the main history article, to important to not have. It is an element of our brand, and this is an encyclopedic history of our brand. -- user:zanimum
Keep per Google logo. Ashibaka tock 02:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia, therefore it should be prepared to accept contributions which are new and for which little precedent may exist. I was pleased to see the article existed when I tried to explain what tesellate means.

Regards, Gregorydavid 09:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think Wikipedia-related material should be held to more stringent standards than Google. Jon Moore 18:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grease Trucks[edit]

Keep - I don't think you can find fat sandwitches anywhere else.. This article should be kept because the Grease Trucks give so much character to Rutgers University. They have become part of the tradition, and should not be erased from all records because some are offended by them. Tamer
Delete even though I actually attend Rutgers and know about these trucks, the fact is that they are nn enough to have an article Jersey Devil 18:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Surely "fat bitch" is sexist rather than homophobic anyway. --MacRusgail 18:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Rutgerscruft. dbtfz ^talk 02:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete —Xezbeth 20:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yildiz Savaslari Com[edit]

Not notable, possible advertising spam MacRusgail 18:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:WEB.Isopropyl 18:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fat sandwich[edit]

Delete nn (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grease Trucks) Jersey Devil 18:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --MacRusgail 18:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn Rutgerscruft. dbtfz ^talk 02:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 09:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of discographies[edit]

A textbook example of a truly pointless list. Who would read it? Why? It serves absolutely no purpose that could not be served by the already existing Category:Discographies and, if necessary, some new subcategories. And, let's not forget, a discography is a list of records so what we have here is a "a list of lists of records that are also in a category". Delete. kingboyk 18:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think kingboyk's nomination is rather funny. Props to him for the find. Isopropyl 19:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From WP:NOT, see # 7 Not a directory; which includes not a directory of discography sites. —ERcheck @ 21:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject matter must be notable else we wouldnt have the category, and lists serve a different purpose. Jcuk 00:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what we have categories for. Proto||type 10:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful list for people who want to know what discographies we have organized by type of music. Hence it goes way beyond a category. It also does not violate any policies. Deleting this serves no coherent organizational purpose for this site. -- JJay 07:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories. The entries in List_of_discographies#Discographies_for_record_labels, for example, would go nicely into Category:Discographies for record labels, which would itself be added to Category:Discographies. When/if we have thousands of discography articles it will make organisation and navigation much easier, trust me :) --kingboyk 12:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When/if we have thousands of discography articles subcategories may be a solution. Until such time, though, the list is a a far more convenient way of organizing our coverage. It provides an immediate categorized overview of the lists. It should obviously be kept. -- JJay 12:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

very obvious delete. This is what categories are for. Friday (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 11:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Confession[edit]

nn book, advertising, possible vanispam. Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,617,961 in Books, 412 mentions in Google. み使い Mitsukai 18:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Timothy Edward Jones, the author should be listed too, or at least researched for notability. --MacRusgail 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: author fails WP:BIO. His article will be put up for AFD shortly.--み使い Mitsukai 05:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --MacRusgail 18:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author article speedy deleted as repost, "emerging" = not emerged yet = complete bollocks. Published by PublishAmerica, who specialise in unknown authors. Just zis Guy you know? 22:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - nomination withdrawn. Kusma (討論) 06:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landeshauptmann[edit]

Delete. Landeshauptmann is just the German word for president of the state government. A Landeshauptmann in Austria does not have any special area of responsibility or importance than presidents of provinces in other countries. There is no article about Landesregierung (German word for state government) either. This is no dictionary. (Never mind the article's current condition. In case we decide to keep it, I will rework it to be as informative as possible, which is not much.) Dreadlady 19:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, can be expanded into a useful article mostly about the functions of the Landeshauptmanns by using information from de:Landeshauptmann. Kusma (討論) 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My main concern still is that Landeshauptmann is no unique form of political duty. As I said it is simply the president of the state government. It appears more useful to me to keep the article under a different (English!) name. Dreadlady 19:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So would you like to merge this into States of Austria or rename it to Governors of Austrian states or something like that? All of these things can be done without deleting this article. Kusma (討論) 20:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd prefer an article like Austrian state politicians, summing up all kinds of state politicians. Seems more useful to me. (Who searches the English Wikipedia for Landeshauptmann?) Dreadlady 23:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment according to this page the official translation is State Governor. Bobby1011 00:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with its German name. Anybody researching this particular office of government may use this term. If it were to be exchanged for Governors of Austrian states than the italian province would be ignored. Pages with the english titles could be created, but they should redirect to this one. As for the state of the article, it concentrates mostly on the use of the word, with a special emphasis on the feminist attributes. Obviously its scope should be expanded to encompass more information about the title itself and what the job entails. Bobby1011 00:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by your logic of there being no unique form of Duty Prince of Wales should go. The title obviously exists, so why not have an article on it Jcuk 00:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that there are articles like Landtag and Bürgermeister as well. In this case, Landeshauptmann is absolutely legitime and the article should be kept. I still think German political duties should be handled differently, but this is not to be discussed here (see German-speaking Wikipedians). I'm sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. Dreadlady 05:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahd mohd[edit]

Just found this incomplete AfD nomination of a POV essay. Delete as unencyclopedic. Kusma (討論) 19:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR opinion essay. Weregerbil 19:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any useful information could be merged into Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, if any information can be found. Frankly I kind of get a headache trying to read this. Isopropyl 19:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Jpgordon with summary of hoax. -- JLaTondre 14:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandelli[edit]

Hoax bio. Copy of article AfD'd and deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Boulting-Casserley Vandelli. Weregerbil 19:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ((hoax)) bio and should have been tagged as such. As per nom. (aeropagitica) 22:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and thus tagged. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Bobet 14:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laminar Research[edit]

When I first saw this article it was almost entirely a quote from the president of the company. The article was essentially written as a self-promoting advertisement talking about how great the company, and the president, is.

I attempted to cut out the unverifiable data and rewrite the article, but could not find any information that didn't come from the company itself, or more specifically, information that didn't come from the president of the company. I'm leaving the article in it's current stub form, but the company doesn't seem to be notable enough to have any hope of expanding on it. - CloudedIce 19:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — They do have a couple of commercial games released, neither of which received stellar reviews. They're right on the fuzzy edge of notablity for me. — RJH 17:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — That is true, however, if you look at each games' article you can see that the information contained therein covers almost all the verifiable points I could find in the Laminar Research article. It seems kind of pointless to keep this article if it's mostly going to be a repository of links to Laminar Reasearch's games, since that violates WP:NOT. If someone can expand on the article and cite references, then I'm all for keeping it, but I just don't see that happening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ice-Soft-Eng (talk • contribs) 21:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep — I've added some more detail to the article, but I think there's still potential for expansion (not to mention improvement on my style of writing). Laminar was also notable enough to be featured in a Popular Science article (now an external link), and it could also provide some more information for the article - it's been a while since I've read it properly. --Scott Wilson 21:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Publisher of games that have gotten themselves into international retail sales. And, knowing the method behind X-Plane, probably an interesting and somewhat unique among game developers. Yep, a good candidate for expansion. That's what stub templates are for. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep weak keep but keep none the less. Nigelthefish 14:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob ert 00:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomy[edit]

Transwiki - Dictionary Definition - as such, it belongs in wiktionary, not wikipedia. Michael Ralston 19:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article on the political science meaning of the term could certainly be written. Alternatively this could be reworked into a disambig page. - SimonP 19:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP. dbtfz ^talk 02:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a mature and useful disambiguation page that combines a number of explanations that could be expanded, but which are currently stubs. Eleven other Wikipedias include an article on this subject, so it's hardly un-notable. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per 373 backlinks and 11 transwikis. Even if the current content needs work, apparently a number of people think something belongs here, and the current content certainly has at least a little utility. --Interiot 05:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Just expand it. It doesn't have to be a definition page. -Justin (koavf), talk 02:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP. -Maxwell Kramer 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a disambig page and then some. Cool3 00:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 14:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erskine College Big Man on Campus[edit]

Nn competition, only 33 Googles. King of Hearts | (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, collegecruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn event. Punkmorten 11:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Marcoux[edit]

This girl is less than 10 years old and appeared only in one minor episode of Friends. IMO she is not notable enough to have her own article. --Tone 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as barely-notable vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 22:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page. A kid who's been on camera once, definitely nn. Fan1967 23:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Wh e re ^(talk) 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is very cute and very non-notable. Ashibaka tock 20:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan R. Rosich[edit]

Delete Apparent hoax. No Google hits for Ryan Rosich or 'tramautic laughing syndrome'. Citations seem implausible. JGF Wilks 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Article isn't tagged to show it is being considered for deletion Nfitz 19:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. -- Krash (Talk) 22:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. -- Krash (Talk) 22:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Mailer diablo. -- JLaTondre 16:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned Realms[edit]

I placed this up for WP:PROD but page author removed the tag. Reason I gave was "Fails WP:WEB, article does not assert notability, seems to be written as an advert.", which still stands. I did try and persuade the author to try and save the article from deletion (see here) but unfortunately my original reasoning stands. Delete. Petros471 19:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advert. -- Krash (Talk) 22:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - There are several thousand MUD's (mostly unstable) and several more appropriate places for them to advertise. The article on MUDs exists because it is a minor phenomenon but no single MUD is worth a Wikipedia article Green Giant 01:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aldaraia[edit]

Keep. There are heaps of album pages like this on Wikipedia, setup so they are ready to be updated when new info becomes availble, everyone else is just being uptight because they didn't think to create it first. Johnnyw probably just rounded up a group of people he knows and got them all to say "delete" after all, he can swing the opinion in his favour since the album isnt linked in the Tool discography, W for wanker. -- Borgy (Talk) 15:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you serious? I rounded up my Wikipedia-Lobby-Task-Force to enforce this deletion but was so secret about it that you - and only you - are able to expose this elaborate plot? And who are you anyway??? (Never seen you contribute to ANY of the articles I work on..) Less insulting more contributing, dude... very weak. --Johnnyw 13:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact no one can see the album page is enough for me to be serious and that's cause i never contribute to any articles you wrok on and when i am contributing to Wikipedia i usually don't log in unless i need to upload a photo. I am contributing, I put up a template ready to go, to be edited as soon as new details surface, now it has to be created all over again because you want it to be done once the rumor mill has stopped turning. It takes time to build a house right and most of all to compose an album, If you get my drift. --Borgy 1:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. You have to make a difference between your wish to keep your work and keeping an article on Wikipedia. As you said, the article is just a placeholder, a "template ready to go". But creating an article as a placeholder is just the wrong way. But don't panic, your work does not have to be lost. =) Just copy the code to user space or to BJAODN. The article itself needs to meet the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball-criteria. So don't take it personally that the article was nominated for deletion. And by the way, I would appreciate if you accepted that I am not the mastermind behind this nomination. I am merely one of the long time and frequent contributors of the Tool article, and usually, I have only good in mind. If a band related article sums up a lot of speculation and rumors (which are not verifiable) it gives the maintainers a really hard time keeping the article up to par with our own standards. I hope you understand my POV as well.. Rest assured that I will be one of the first with helping you with your article, as soon as it qualifies. --Johnnyw 14:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BluesX 17:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 20:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's wait until Tool confirms that the album has a title or if Aldaraia is really the album title or not. Mike Garcia 21:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article itself explains why it should be deleted. -- Krash (Talk) 22:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tool is "famous" for passing out rumours about their upcoming releases that ultimately end up not to be true. —kooo 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until any real news turn up this is just another rumor... --Johnnyw 03:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First release, then article. Obli (Talk)^? 11:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a rumor. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for that which is alleged or possible, only what is. DELETE!!
Delete. As a long-time Tool fan, I completely agree -- delete this until the details are irrefutable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaxTrax! (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 —Xezbeth 20:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amrine Cult[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 20:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 22:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is an attack page intended to disparage the subject. The content is inaccurate, unsourced. --68.55.235.135 19:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death in December band[edit]

Aside from probably failing WP:MUSIC, the whole article was copied verbatim from the band's myspace page. Delete unless this article is majorly cleaned up so that it isn't a direct copy of another webpage and that it meets appropriate criteria. EdGl 04:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 20:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per ((db-band)). -- Krash (Talk) 22:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per above Nigelthefish 14:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. D e athphoenix ʕ 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show[edit]

Keep. I found it useful.

Delete. Neologisms (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 20:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. its a useful topic. many might not know what something on his show means and would turn here. 71.145.140.22 08:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Caesarscott[reply]
~~Keep~~ Abstain, with comments. Arundhati Bakshi's grounds for deletion are incorrect. According to Wikipedia:No original research: "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is: <snip> it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source" Here, the neologisms are being attributed to a reputable source (namely, The Rush Limbaugh Show). If somebody disputes the use of a term on the show, it can be verified by pointing to an episode of the show in which the word was used. In particular, if the disputed term was used less than 30 days in the past, it is available on the web via the Rush 24/7 service; older references would require going to an archive, of course. — DLJessup (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After further review, I have found a possible ground for deletion under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If this article is considered a jargon guide, it should be deleted (or possibly moved to Wikibooks); on the other hand, if it is a glossary, it should be kept. — DLJessup (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 20:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a indiscriminate jargon guide of protologisms. -- Krash (Talk) 21:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; seems like a legitimate fork given that the two articles it could otherwise be merged into (Rush Limbaugh and The Rush Limbaugh Show) are both long enough as they are. A lot of these terms have gone from neologisms into common use amongst conservatives purely because Limbaugh started using them (for example, "Dingy Harry" gets 15,700 Google hits. --Aaron 22:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into The Rush Limbaugh Show. Karmafist 23:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or they could be Transwikiied to Wiktionary. Whatever. Karm a fist 23:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These terms are notable because of Limbaugh's huge influence on American political (esp. conservative) culture. As mentioned above, articles into which this could be merged are long enough already. I hope people aren't voting "delete" just because they hate Limbaugh. dbtfz^talk 01:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't hate Limbaugh (or are even very familiar with him) . . . my vote was due to the fact that the article seemed like a list of new words coined and that WP is not a dictionary or list of slang, although there are lost of entries that seem to violate that idea. If the words are notable enough and used widely, then maybe I would be Ok with merging it into a sort of "conservative American culture" article, to give it more context. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge- the article would stand alone because Rush Limbaugh's name provides enough context by itself. Perhaps the name of the article should make reference to parlance rather than jargon. This way people will not mistake Limbaugh's sarcasm and humor for neologisms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.110.205.177 (talk • contribs) .
- Sarcasm might be a more appropriate moniker. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT WP:WINAD WP:AFDP#words Wikipedia is not for lists of definitions or lists of quotes. Also possibly could be considered an attack page (and there's no way I can see to make the page NPOV). Possibly original research in definitions given WP:OR. Transwiki notable entries, if any, to Wiktionary or Wikiquote, or smerge to Rush Limbaugh if necessary. Would happily nom any list of anti-conservative puerile puns by notable leftists for AfD if there were any such lists. Schizombie 03:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from Wikipedia. However, it might be appropriate as the first draft of a Concordance at Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since it appears that this page will be deleted, I have copied the contents of this page to User:DLJessup/Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show. DO NOT EDIT THAT PAGE. I am merely trying to keep a copy of the page available for people who wish to transfer it to Wiktionary (if appropriate) or transfer it out of WikiMedia altogether. — DLJessup (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, if this action is inappropriate, please let me know. I will seek a speedy deletion of the subpage one week after a successful vote for deletion. — DLJessup (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, as long as its in your user space and not in Main it should be fine I am sure. Some of the entries may have a place in Wiktionary. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 16:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, here's why:

It's about Limbaugh not about the words.

The article is not a dictionary, for that would be the standard definitions of these words. Some of the jargon is not neologism but puns, slang, cultural references. In its own context, it is very useful. It's all cited and both suporters and critics of Limbaugh are contributing, and it is above all, useful to the fans or those simply curious about the show. In terms of the structure of the Wikipedia, it has a natural origin since his jargon began to get entered into both the bio article and into the the show article, making a third article as a spin off necessary. If keep loses, the editors of that page will in all likelyhood, recreate the article again if the pattern we saw in 2005 repeats in 2006. The simple analog would be the episode guide and character guide articles of other creative material. And what's motivating this AfD, anyway? Is this a Wikivote on who likes Limbaugh? patsw 03:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Way to assume good faith.... No, it shouldn't be a wikivote on who likes Limbaugh. It should be on whether it satisfies WP policies. It's one of a great many lists of slang and jargon that were put on AfD in mid to late Feb, including List of Internet slang, and List of US railfan jargon, all of which should have been deleted if policy were what truly mattered. So no, particularly considering the context of all those other noms, I think the nom is pretty clearly not a case of anti-Limbaugh bias. There is no doubt a place for all of the lists (internet, railfan, Limbaugh jargon, etc.) somewhere on the web, just not here. I don't know where you get the idea the Limbaugh list is all cited; aren't there just seven cites on the page?

It needs a lot more context. When Limbaugh uses these nicknames, how does he use them? Does he say something like "So and so, or as I like to call him, (insert puerile pun here)" or does he say the nickname without ever using the person's real name at all? If the former, or in the cases where the real name is obvious, or context makes the real name obvious, there's really no reason for the list. Also, some of the names seem to indicate faults he finds in the person, but others don't convey any obvious meaning at all. If his fans want to get really encyclopedic, rather than engaging in fanlistcruft, they'd try to: (1) establish when the name was first used by him (2) if he invented it, or if it was in prior use by others (3) what the name means (if not original research), (4) document whether the name was used more than once, and if so how often (otherwise definitely not notable), (5) whether the use of the name has spread beyond his fans (otherwise hardly notable). If all those conditions could be satisfied, possibly the reasons I cited above for why the page should be deleted would not apply. Schizombie 04:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others said, if it merged with another article it would be to one that is already long enough. Given the importance of the show, and the need for someone to already know what he means, this list is necessary.--Bedford 03:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is misnamed. It may contain references from the show, but it's not jargon so much as schtick. Some of it is manufactured terms, some are portmanteaus and some are just puns, but it's almost all part of Limbaugh's satire and sense of humor/comedy routine, none of it is about creating new definitions or establishing new jargon. It's about commentary, satire, editorializing, etc. In many ways, Limbaugh's manufactured terminology is a defining characteristic of his show, just as such terminology often is with any show. At most, I'd merge it back into the Show article (e.g., South Park's "jargon" schtick is all contained within the show's main article). We have an entire article dedicated to what various abbreviations in World of Warcraft mean. That's far closer to documenting definitions than this article is, and I think neither needs to be removed per policy. Bjsiders 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very helpful and should be kept. It seems much too long to merge into Limbaugh's show article, so I believe it's fine the way it is. NuncAutNunquam 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I used this article to find look up a term I heard on the radio program and did not understand. It served a useful purpose for me.05:07, 3 March 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honoyaya (talk • contribs) .
- Comment Everyone who wants the page to stay essentially says the same thing; for those want to retain the page, I wish the WP policies on why pages like this aren't appropriate for WP that had been raised ~~below~~[above] would be addressed.... Schizombie 22:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Word changed due to posts' positions being changed. Schizombie 04:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per patsw. Clearly notable and the article is really about the radio personality, not the words. NoSeptember ^talk 15:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.253.190.152 (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. – Rob ert 00:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onetouchfootball[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 20:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable advertising. Isopropyl 23:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Isoproprly Jude(talk,contribs) 00:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn per above. Kuru ^talk 05:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sherine Harivandi[edit]

non notable bio and website plug (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article pretty much calls her unnoted. See also Wendy Wayrad, her "alter-ego", which I just proposed for deletion thru the other process, but maybe should be brought into this discussion by someone who's more clear on how to do that. NickelShoe 23:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article does not claim she is notable. Thue | talk 00:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No relevant hits on Google. Delete Wendy Wayrad as well if it gets deprodded and ends up lumped with this AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wendy Wayrad has been speedy A7ed. I also noticed the related Hollywood Bedtime Stories and have prodded that. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I just prodded the related Lady Bastard. NickelShoe 03:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both of those articles have been prod-deleted after five days without protest. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 20:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article tries to claim notability through her films and other related articles, but they are all on AfD or Prodded at the moment as well. Delete this article for non-notability. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. D e athphoenix ʕ 06:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indianapolis public schools[edit]

Unencyclopedic list. Was tagged with prod, but the tag was removed and no reason was given. Delete. Fightindaman 20:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the schools had articles. When they do, they should go into a category, not a list. Wh e re ^(talk) 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why is everybody category crazy? Lists and Categories serve two different purposes, if you have one you should have the corresponding other. Jcuk 00:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:The lovely thing about categories is that they also create lists. Going to Category:Stuff gives you a list of all articles which fit under the heading of "stuff" which are notable enough to have an article. What is the need for duplicating this in a list article? Fightindaman 00:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment:To allow for redlinks, which Wikipedia seems to encourage as a method of highlighting articles which have not been written, but could be written about any given subject, and also to allow extra information to be presented which Categories dont allow. Such as "Noted for being the first A from country B to do C." Or whatever. Jcuk 09:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: If somebody were to add such information that you couldn't have in a category I might rethink the deletion, but as it stands now it's just a list of lots of schools that don't have pages yet. That's what userpages or project pages are for. Fightindaman 14:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to preserve red links. Sumahoy 03:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to get rid of red links. The few blue links resolve to schools elsewhere with the same name. Pointless list. Fan1967 04:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jcuk, categories != lists. Silensor 23:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Indianapolis Public Schools. Does not need an article just for the list of schools. Vegaswikian 00:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please these lists are important to have Yuckfoo 01:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:I'd be more convinced of it's importance if even one of the schools listed had an article written about it. Fightindaman 01:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now we don't just have nn schools but lists of them; probably categories soon too! STOP! Make it all go away! Carlossuarez46 02:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
saveAll you can go somewhere and shove it because 1st of all the list can be edited 2nd of all catagories added these schools are needed 3rd of all y'all are just some pipebaggers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tummy08 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: Please refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you. Fightindaman 05:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what categories are for. People should maybe think about writing articles, which contain things called "sentences" and "paragraphs". -R. fiend 21:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob ert 00:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hapland[edit]

A fun game, but it's not encyclopedic. Cyde Weys 20:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. The article definitely needs work (*understatement*) but we have a whole category for flash games that contains 19 games already (20 if you count Hapland). Hapland is popular enough to warrant inclusion, so I say Keep. --DLand 21:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is notable and has 398,000 google hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Where (talk • contribs)
Keep the google hit level is high. JoshuaZ 03:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 06:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary gay venues in Singapore, Historical Singapore gay venues[edit]

Delete. Unverifiable and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Krash (Talk) 20:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also listing Historical Singapore gay venues for deletion per the reasons listed above. -- Krash (Talk) 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT a #7 a phonebook/directory. This appears to be advertising - with addresses, etc. —ERcheck @ 21:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per ERcheck Sumahoy 03:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irrelevant article. *drew 07:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of nn businesses is no different than the list of nn schools above. Next we'll have a List of places you can still buy a cup of coffee for a dollar Carlossuarez46 02:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Carlossuarez46. This belongs on Wikitravel, if at all. Stifle 11:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant and indiscriminale Leidiot 14:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete somehow wrong

Delete No encyclopedic value. TKE 06:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barely Legal (Family Guy)[edit]

No listing on familyguy.com, planet-familyguy.com, tv.com nor tvguide.com. Google results for ""Barely Legal" "Family Guy" 5ACX03" are for this Wikipedia page only. Without "5ACX03" search results yield a real already aired episode in which Brian reads the magazine "Barely Legal Bitches." Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 21:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By precedent, episodes can have their own separate articles. However, this specific one is unverifiable, and neither I or the nom have been able to find a source on this. Therefore, verifiability, WP:NOT a crystal ball, and the possibility that this article is a hoax are all fitting criteria for deletion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 21:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. -- Krash (Talk) 21:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't verify it. --Bachrach44 23:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. -Colin Kimbrell 18:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually its probably not a hoax [27]. The family guy blog uses blog.familyguy.com the official domain name and features comments from staff and crew. Dont think theres much point deleting. Discordance 00:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the link, I still think that it should be deleted, this time for Crystal Ball-ism. Thanks for pointing it out, though. -Colin Kimbrell 01:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, i was just concerned someone might lock the page if they thought it was a hoax. Discordance 03:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked the link and it took me to "64.70.52.115," which doesn't look like "familyguy.com" (but then again I'm not a DNS computer). But if we accept what it says at face value, it doesn't rule out that "Barely Legal" could be a working title that could get changed to something completely different some time between being sent to the animators and being released on DVD, nor does it rule out that the episode could altogether be discarded without the production code 5ACX03 ever attaching. So based on this evidence alone I'm not ready to change my vote, but I'm willing to consider it if more credible evidence turns up. Cromulent Kwyjibo 00:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothered if it gets deleted just wanted to make sure the page wasnt locked in case it needs recreating in future. and no the site doesnt seem hosted on the same servers but if you enter blog.familyguy.com into your browser you end up at the blog which means they have permission from fox to use a subdomain of the official site.Discordance 01:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's either a hoax or we are breaking out the crystal ball, either way it should be gone.
Delete The blog entry is treated in such an ephemeral way (c'mon, it's barely two months old and already it gets shuffled off familyguy.com) that the information contained in it can't be treated as all that permanent. I have a feeling the episode will wind up with a completely different title, and the title "Barely Legal" won't take hold in the public consciousness (the way "European Road Show" did for "Road to Rhode Island") so that it won't even merit a redirect. But if there does turn out to be an episode with the title, the article can be created again, no harm done, IF AND WHEN AN AIR DATE OR RELEASE DATE IS ANNOUNCED. Anton Mravcek 22:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably a hoax and if not it's nonnotable. Cool3 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might as well delete it i agree its crystal ball-ism and the episode may not reach final production or change names but no it's probably not a hoax it was announced by a director on a subdomain of the offical domain name (granted not hosted by them). non-notable? only because its crystal-ballism. Anton (European Road show/Road to Europe btw) im not the creator of this article i certainly wont recreate it until its aired i dont see the point in stubs on future episodes. I'm only defending it from being labelled a hoax because as far as im aware hoax pages can be locked even if the show changes names it may deserve a redirect.Discordance 04:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. D e athphoenix ʕ 06:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore gay personalities[edit]

Delete per Wikipedia is not a place for original research, an indiscriminate repository, or a propaganda/advocacy soapbox. -- Krash (Talk) 21:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with qualifications. Documenting the gay rights movement in Singapore seems notable enough for an article. I'd recommend a rewrite, however. Perhaps changing the direction of the article to something that would warrant the title "Gay rights movement in Singapore" would be more useful to Wikipedia. Vote changed to Delete per arguments by Krash. - Simoes 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to already be a great deal on the subject here (see Homosexuality in Singapore). Documenting the gay rights movement in Singapore is notable but I fail to see how this article helps us towards that goal. Notwithstanding, the concerns raised in my nomination remain. -- Krash (Talk) 00:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Singapore gay activists, keep only content related to activists, remove the rest. In this way, it will be of a more focused topic, and more verifiable. --Vsion (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and soapboax. *drew 07:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (among its alphabetic daughter lists) as appropriate under the editors' standards there (basically a red link bio means the person cannot be added); move the pictures (if there is no copyvio issue) to the bios. We don't need to divide List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people by country. Carlossuarez46 02:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. Verifying this is a huge problem and may subject Wikimedia to legal problems. Stifle 11:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm Leidiot 14:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 15:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article makes the "gay equality movement" in Singapore more real. List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people is so long that it had to be divided alphabetically, which makes it awkward. A division by country is more useful. Verification is not much of a problem since these people have publicly expressed that they are gay. Most names have external links to articles. Wuzzy 16:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. I'm applying vote closer's discretion when I say that the delete comments here are more convincing than the keep comments, hence my closing result. D e athphoenix ʕ 06:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rosicrucians[edit]

This page should be deleted as it does not meet requirements of WP:WEB or WP:BIO, and it also does not meet notability requirements. The historical people listings are from one source and are stated as unverifiable on the page, and the rest of the members are not "famous or notable people who are also Rosicrucians" (which is the usual idea behind lists, such as List of Freemasons but "people who are only notable because they are or were Imperators of a Rosicrucian organization". This is easily verifiable by going to the main articles of the non-historical individuals listed on the page. The bulk of the info on those pages is usually only their Rosicrucian information. MSJapan 21:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment WP:WEB and WP:BIO are irrelevant to this article. Georgewilliamherbert 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion on article talk page, the sub-list of notable historical people who are claimed to be Rosicrucians is by itself sufficiently notable to justify keeping the article. The list is poorly sourced, but not known to be incorrect. The other sub-lists (of people who were senior Rosicrucians) aren't sufficiently notable for an article outside the main Rosicrucian article, but should be left as-is with the justifyable historical notables list. I will withdraw this objection if the list of notable historical people who were Rosicrucians can be verifyably shown to be incorrect, but until that point, keep. Georgewilliamherbert 21:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: "I will withdraw this objection if the list of notable historical people who were Rosicrucians can be verifyably shown to be incorrect" The opposite is required under WP:Verifiability. The list must be shown to be verifiably correct. Unless that standard can be met (and I don't believe it can), Delete. Fan1967 22:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, please re-read. The list of people in the article are easily widely verifyably claimed to be Rosicrucians throughout many different sources. WP:Verifyability requires that you be able to show that such sources in the real world exist in order to presume facts are correct. Making that verification takes close to no time with any reference material on Rosicrucianism, and I have done so. My point is, that I don't know those sources to be accurate and I'm defending the article because of a rebuttable presumption that they are. Perhaps the article should be retitled List of people claimed to be Rosicrucians or some such, per cases where non-RC sources on their claimed membership aren't substantial. Or the list split further into well-known, claimed, and internal RC members. Georgewilliamherbert 03:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V per Fan1967, and because such a list can never be truly comprrehensive. --Aaron 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- cannot be verified, especially in light of the checkered history of Rosicrucianism. Haikupoet 02:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best this could be a list of suspected Rosicrucians. However, we all know that the only real Rosicrucians are the people you don't suspect... JoshuaZ 03:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced. Which is a shame, as it would be quite interesting if it was verifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 09:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete, articles must be verifiable. Proto||type 10:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Que? How unsourced? The source (Mastery of Life article pdf at rosicrucian.org is listed and linked at the top of the historical figures list... Georgewilliamherbert 10:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many different groups have called themselves Rosicrucians and many of those groups have claimed historical people as their own to gain prestige. JoshuaZ 13:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly true. And there are groups sometimes lumped in with Rosicrucians which would prefer not to be, such as some of the Masonic orders and the like. However, that's not the specific question, which is whether there are sources for the Rosicrucian (in this case, AMORC) claim that the specific list in the article represents prior members of historical notability. Extensive AMORC and related Rosicrucian writings document their claim to that effect, and probably the most central single source available is linked right off the top of the list. It's sourced referenced material, period, and the reference is right there. My position is, given that source reference, it's neutrality-enhancing to claim that the list is of people Rosicrucians claim were members but may not otherwise verifyably have been, and counterevidence to those names would argue that the source isn't to be trusted and therefore isn't a useful reference. I support a NPOV edit disclaimer per above, but don't support deletion unless we can show the list was defective (with references more credible than the Rosicrucians themselves). Georgewilliamherbert 20:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If one has so many different groups running around calling themselves Rosicrucian and claiming various people as their own, its a fundamental verifiability issue/definability issue. JoshuaZ 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (based on the work of William Poundstone) that AMORC is not a reliable source to document such claims. If you can find an independent source to document your claims, fine, but I don't think a piece of what non-Rosicrucians would consider propaganda qualifies. Haikupoet 21:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

< crickets chirping > ... and the full source reference to this William Poundstone work which you claim shows AMORC is an unreliable source, thence matching my criterion for abandoning keep support, is... ? < /crickets chirping > Georgewilliamherbert 21:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book Bigger Secrets. Essentially presents AMORC as a possible fraud. What it comes down to, though, is that AMORC, irrelevant of whether it is a fraud or not, is not an objective source. Not necessarily wrong per se, but what it says has to be verified. Haikupoet 21:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That book is a counterargument, but it's not unbiased or fully reference grade reliable either. It is not convincing disproof. Is there another source? Georgewilliamherbert 07:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with NPOV edit disclaimer, or merge like was done with Skull and Bones. Carlossuarez46 02:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore gay portrayals on television[edit]

Delete as original research. -- Krash (Talk) 21:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Sumahoy 03:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irrelevant article. *drew 07:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of television shows with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered characters Carlossuarez46 03:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:NOR] Leidiot 14:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Orkin[edit]

Delete Until it is proven, verifiably and not just with unverifiable claims, that the writer is notable I'll vote delete. User:Striver up to his old antics. With so many of his articles getting majority delete afd's and he be accused so many times by contributing wikipedians about his POV edits isn't it about time he at least get a block from one of the administrators for exhausting the community's patience? Jersey Devil 21:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least part of the article is a possible copyvio [28], and is part of Striver's ongoing WP:POINT-violating campaign of 9/11 crankcruft. --Aaron 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is actually longer than Patrick Moore's article; Dr. Moore is one of the founding members of Greenpeace and is unquestionably more notable than Orkin. Note that Moore's article lists his major (let me repeat: major) accomplishments, rather than every single thing that he has ever done. Isopropyl 23:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' this is in line with the series of bad faith AFD launched agains anyting related to the 9/11 Truth movement:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9-11: The Road to Tyranny
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrie Zwicker
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Thompson (researcher)

you created the preponderance of the articles, and are trying to boost notability by having these articles all link to each other. In other words, a wikibomb. I've attempted to be civil but the latest articles are pushing the envelope. --Mmx1 04:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that they are not getting any consensus for delting those previous articles, rather critisim for AFD'ing in in the first place. Previous three voters should be admonished from a admin. --Striver 01:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per remarks above. dbtfz ^talk 02:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the article claimed that her writing has been published in the New York Times, this isn't even true - she just had a poem printed in the Metropolitan Diary section. Rhobite 02:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Source for the statment being false? --Striver 03:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I searched the Times archive and found no articles written by her. All I found was the Metropolitan Diary which contained her poem, and an article about 9/11 environmental protests. If you're familiar with the NY Times, you'll know that Metropolitan Diary is composed entirely of submissions from readers, not journalists. Rhobite 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Same here, I Lexis-Nexised it and turned up zip. --Mmx1 04:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. JoshuaZ 03:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC) changing to abstain due to the number of google hits.[reply]

She definitly has the 5000 people needed in accordance to WP:BIO, and is notable by Wikpedia standards --Striver 03:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC) m sure that more than 5 000 have read the national Indian newspaper, The Hindu. --Striver 04:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I don't see anywhere in WP:BIO where the number 5000 is, did I miss it? Isopropyl, length of other articles is not relevant to whether or not this one should be deleted. That said, I would be willing to change my vote to keep if this article demonstrated her notability, whicc as of now, it does not. It also would need massive clean up (most of what is mentioned here is clearly non-notable). JoshuaZ 04:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more --Striver 04:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure that more than 5 000 have read the national Indian newspaper, The Hindu.

And also, you can be sure that more than 5000 watched The Citizens' Commission on 9-11, and that more than 5000 read CounterPunch.

--Striver 05:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author is attempting to wikibomb "9-11 Bin Laden Conspiracy Theory" --Mmx1 04:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver in editing the page deleted a number of other peoples comments. I have taken the liberty of putting them back in and moving his comment to where it makes more sense. Striver, in the future, please do not remove other peoples comments. JoshuaZ 04:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, very sorry, i see it now. A misstake while editing, again, sorry. --Striver 05:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also managed to remove my edits while fixing the problem: [29]--Striver 05:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Sandstein 09:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn although comments about "it is shorten than such-and-such who is very notable" are irrelevant (see User:Batmanand/Opinions/AfD]) Batmanand | Talk 14:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete per consensus. -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badger Attack! and Kittenflux[edit]

Two articles about non-notable club nights in Cambridge. Delete. JeremyA 21:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. No context. No importance. -- Krash (Talk) 03:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete. Utterly non-notable. Jaxal1 04:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not opposed to articles on community events, but I can't find any media coverage of either of these. -Colin Kimbrell 18:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. mikka (t) 00:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore public gay parties, Singapore gay literature, Singapore gay art, Singapore gay theatre, Singapore gay films[edit]

Delete as unverifiable original research and indiscriminate. -- Krash (Talk) 21:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add Singapore gay literature, Singapore gay art, Singapore gay theatre, Singapore gay films. -- Krash (Talk) 21:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most of content in Singapore gay literature, Singapore gay theatre, and Singapore gay films are verifiable via Internet, and at least part of Singapore gay art as well. I haven't check the others. Did the nominator tried to verify the content? --Vsion (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". I'm not questioning the verifiability of the specific films/plays; they can have their own articles. I maintain that loosely associating them in this fashion is original research. Also, to quote the film article: "...there is to date not a single film entirely produced by Singaporeans in Singapore belonging to this genre." Then why make an article about something that doesn't exist? -- Krash (Talk) 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand that Singapore don't have a landscape anywhere close to the Brokeback Mountain. We do have a Bukit Timah Hill, but it is not quite scenic enough for a full-length feature film. --Vsion 16:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Singapore gay literature has 16 references; it is better sourced than most articles. Singapore gay theatre and Singapore gay films seem verifiable. The more recent events mentioned in Singapore gay art are probably verifiable online. According to the Singapore public gay parties article, the 2004 Nations party was mentioned in Time Magazine and the 2005 version was mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald;so, it is sourced and somewhat notable. . Where references are wanting, it looks like they might be added. The films article mentions Bugis Street, a Hong Kong-Singapore co-production about Singaporean transvestites, and Rice Rhapsody about a Singaporean gay divorcée; so the topic of the article exists. I think it is acceptable to make an original compilation of information that is verifiable; that is what most articles are. The ban on original research is directed at unverifiable information. The articles are not indiscriminate collections, though the film article is a bit weak here. Pulling the information together adds informational value. Taken together, the articles give a picture of LGBT culture and life in Singapore, which I find to be an interesting topic. Wuzzy 02:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And I ~~argue~~ contend that, for the most part, all of these articles represent one contributer's viewpoint on the subjects in question. I can't help but think this is some sort of soapbox. -- Krash (Talk) 03:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes that's probably right. I think the one on gay parties should really be deleted because of that. --James 03:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Move public gay parties to Nation(Singapore Gay Party). -Dodo bird 05:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The literature, art and film articles have at least 2 writers. The parties article has only one writer, but was only started in Nov 05. I don't think the fact that an article has only writer makes it a soapbox. It is obvious that the author has an interest in the topic, but that in itself does not make the article a soapbox, not unless the article is argumentative and one-sided. Wuzzy 15:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep everything but delete the gay parties. --James 02:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and cleanup. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. *drew 08:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all but the parties Carlossuarez46 03:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete all as unencyclopaedic. Please see WP:WWIN. Stifle 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all but the parties Leidiot 14:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and merge into a single article on gay culture in Singapore Minah 17:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all definitely. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolus[edit]

delete non notable company, lack of context. Melaen 21:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No context. Not notable. -- Krash (Talk) 01:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Proto||type 10:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no context worth noting. Stifle 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 11:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrick Nealy[edit]

~~non-notable, probable vanity page. Simoes 22:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)~~ Notable enough now, I guess. Vote switched to Keep. - Simoes 23:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As it stands, the article is barely a stub, with nothing but his name and school. If he gets drafted and joins the NFL, he would become notable, but right now he's just a graduating college quarterback. Fan1967 22:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switch vote to Neutral after update. It appears he has some notability in college athletics, and he appears on websites of prospective NFL draft picks. Someone who knows more about football than I would need to judge his notability. Fan1967 20:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 00:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain for now. He might be notable to someone.[30] -- Krash (Talk) 22:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was honored as his confrence's "Player of the Year" in 2005, holds multiple career records for his school, and finished fifth in the voting for the 2005 Walter Payton Award. As such, qualifies as a notable amateur, regardless of any future pro career. -Colin Kimbrell 18:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have included these claims of notability in the article, which I now believe to be a workable stub. -Colin Kimbrell 19:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 23:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submission (Islam)[edit]

Delete Stub contains content already in Islam and Submitters, thus proposed merge is unnecessary. Schizombie 22:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing mentioned on this page that is not already in the Islam article. (aeropagitica) 22:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (aeropagitica). -- Krash (Talk) 00:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aeropagitica. Stifle 17:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Mahanchian 22:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete per consensus. -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_web_directory#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_web_directory#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Messianic Jewish Organizations[edit]

Delete. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list with not one relevant internal link. Just zis Guy you know? 23:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate per WP:NOT. -- Krash (Talk) 00:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is just a link farm of a lump of "External links" with only ONE POV (it's neither a NPOV article nor a normal Wikipedia "List of..." anything -- just Messianic Judaism POV external links...) and is in violation of the following Wikipedia guidelines (See what the article was [31] before I Wikified it [32] . In both its forms the article falls far short of Wikipedia's policies): (1) Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. (2) Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. (3) Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (4) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Finally, see also Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) and Wikipedia:Embedded list for the correct guidelines about the Purpose of lists. IZAK 09:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is a web directory, not a Wikipedia list. jnothman ^talk 10:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd suggest to the the author, who has substantial knowledge on the subject, to create a category, with subcategories, which would be filled up with new articles about these organizations. Otherwise, I thing the term 'external link farm' accurately describes the sole purpose of this page.--Shuki 11:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad idea because categories without articles in them get deleted very quickly. So the correct order is to first write a few decent articles and when they need some legitimate categorization, go ahead and first see if there are already pre-existing categories that foot the bill and only then decide how to create suitable new categories. But do not "blaze away" with categories if there is nothing to put into them. IZAK 11:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its a web directory Kuratowski's Ghost 12:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- it's purpose seems to be merely to promote these sites. We are not a link launcher. I agree with Shuki above: if the author wants these orgs included, then create informative articles about them, not web directories. Rooster613 13:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Google™ Avi 15:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the silliness, hope the creator replaces with decent articles on each.Vizjim 15:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unacceptable in current form as a list of external links. This may be a perfectly valid topic, and possibly many of the organizations linked (externally) deserve articles. There is no way to tell by looking at this. - Jmabel | Talk 17:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Wikipedia is not... Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete external link farm. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete against our policies. gidonb 18:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Yid613 19:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rooster 613. --Yodamace1 22:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Shlomke 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Evolver of Borg 06:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yoninah 21:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WWIN. Stifle 17:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfied to User:Rafinator. It was that or BJAODN... Just zis Guy you know? 09:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rafitropolis[edit]

"Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." Google returns nothing. Andrew11 23:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, so author can have his own personal empire in his own personal userspace. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a joke. --Bachrach44 23:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Wh e re ^(talk) 23:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bachrach44. --Maxamegalon2000 00:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. -- Krash (Talk) 00:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 23:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosco08.com[edit]

Non-notable website. Doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:WEB--delete. JeremyA 23:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn Wh e re ^(talk) 23:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information on page in un-necessary and useless. delete Wcs admin 00:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT & WP:WEB. -- Krash (Talk) 00:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

page should be deleted because does not comply with WP:WEB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.251.200.143 (talk • contribs) .

Delete per Krash. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 06:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT, as above Just zis Guy you know? 10:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Rob ert 23:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Colors of Japan[edit]

Nomination stems from discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/French_Colors. Isopropyl 23:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no context for the list. —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. -- Krash (Talk) 00:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. -- Krash (Talk) 13:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a dictionary entry, corresponding article exists in Japanese Wikipedia, sources cited, and has historical and literary importance. Sudachi 00:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Could perhaps be made into a genuine encyclopedia article, but right now it is just a ~~translation guide~~ guide to Japanese color terms. dbtfz ^talk 02:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Corrected my comment in response to Sudachi. dbtfz ^talk 04:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC). Weak keep in light of recent expansion. It's starting to look like a real article. dbtfz ^talk 05:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not exactly see how the article is a guide for translation as there are no translations given. Unless you refer to translation of Hexdec<->RGB translation. Could you please specify? Sudachi 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as expanded per Sudachi. Additionally, although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia has well defined lists of terms.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 05:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rewrite. --Vsion 06:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming it continues the current rend of improvement, even if it does sound like a Benetton advert :-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and say what each of the series means. This was worked on fairly hard, and is encyclopedic, it just needs a bit more filling. Karm a fist 20:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I learned something I never knew nor even considered that I can amaze friends and family with; isn't that the purpose of an encyclopedia. Seriously, it is well thought out but I would like to see it expanded with some context. Carlossuarez46 03:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rob ert 23:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KCI Computing[edit]

No evidence of meetign WP:CORP. Looked for notable clients, didn't find them. Looked for stock market listing, didn't find it. Looked for number of employees, didn't find it. Looked for evidence of turnover, didn't find it. Actually can't verify anythign of substance from a reliable source: it all seems to track beack to press releases and advertorial. Just zis Guy you know? 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 00:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ad for nn company. Fan1967 01:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without any other content it is nn per above Kuru ^talk 05:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 26[edit]

Jefferson DNA Data[edit]

List of Genetic Results from Notable Persons[edit]

Contabilitate[edit]

Baby Blue (musician)[edit]

Human Brain Evolution and Sexual Lying[edit]

PuntoCL[edit]

Paranoia MUD[edit]

The hill school[edit]

Lulu Lemon, now redirected to Lululemon[edit]

VT Productions[edit]

The Fortean Bureau[edit]

Paul Thompson (researcher)[edit]

Funga[edit]

Conspiracy factualist[edit]

French Colors[edit]

Fupa[edit]

GOM[edit]

Chris Faiers[edit]

GRODMIN (film)[edit]

Jim Horwitz[edit]

Battle of Kessel[edit]

Niesa Dewitt[edit]

2006 Winter Olympics points[edit]

Westology[edit]

Calculus jokes[edit]

Good Grief[edit]

Mike Murphy (technologist)[edit]

Naa[edit]

Werkplace[edit]

Horizontal christology[edit]

Christ Club[edit]

Possum Game[edit]

Battle of Commenor[edit]

Glyconutrient[edit]

Harman[edit]

Favorite betrayal criterion[edit]

The Ley of Lothwell and Lupocaan[edit]

BEARcade[edit]

Remis (Slang)[edit]

Luz Mosquera[edit]

Migrant marketer[edit]

Hababam Sinifi[edit]

Everything I Hate About You[edit]

Hafr Al-Batin[edit]

Ro-Guardians[edit]

Haileybury Computer Club/Temp[edit]

Keepers of the Flame[edit]

Tomi Saarelma[edit]

Marko Angelo Altomonte of the Philippines[edit]

Scotoma effect[edit]

The Wasted[edit]

Matthew Young[edit]

Josh Briskout[edit]

Retsuken Ryu[edit]

Prakash Puram[edit]

List Of Professor Farnsworth's Inventions[edit]

Paul Holt[edit]

On-the-job & off-the-job training[edit]

Unibe[edit]

Underneath the Arches (nightclub)[edit]

List of International Baccalaureate schools[edit]

Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Yusuf[edit]

Supermposed fright[edit]

The Drowned Baby Timeline[edit]

Diane Boulting-Casserley Vandelli[edit]

Bringing Up Buster (Arrested Development episode)[edit]

Providence (gospel group)[edit]

David C.Thomas Esq.[edit]

Blythwood (TTC)[edit]

Floatware[edit]

VSF - FC[edit]

Mangina[edit]

Barrie Zwicker[edit]

Counting trees[edit]

Man Your Spacesuits[edit]

Futurewise[edit]

Papapayeah[edit]

S. Treb Farm and Grains[edit]

List of mugshots collected by The Smoking Gun[edit]