Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 1

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< January 31 February 2 >

Purge server cache

February 1

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (42/23/1). Mailer Diablo 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck"

edit
For the first VFD discussion of this article, see Talk:List of films ordered by uses of the word fuck.
For the second AfD discussion of this article, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_ordered_by_uses_of_the_word_fuck.
Name an Almanac with an article like this. I'll look through the ones I have.--T. Anthony 03:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only Wikipedia's almanac has this because we have the best almanac. Ashibaka tock 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well okay, but I don't see why getting into this level of movie trivia is doing something better than other Almanacs. Added to that why limit to this word? I imagine there are plenty of words more shocking to hear in films today. Maybe we could have List of films ordered by uses of the word "cunt" or List of films ordered by uses of the word "kyke". If rarity matters maybe List of films ordered by uses of the word "quincunx". All of these could be verified in similar ways, checking scripts etc, but that doesn't mean any of them would be definitively correct as there are many scripts that get filmed out there. Especially when you include non-US English language films.--T. Anthony 17:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to say is, that it was a borderline issue imho. But I have to admit that you are right that's it's still violating WP:NOR no matter how we change the list and therefore, I (sadly) change my vote to delete.
Keep, verifiable and interesting. Essexmutant 12:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lolicon Edit War

edit

This is of interest only to Wikipedians, and it shows no reason why it would be notable enough for a regular article (i.e., why it would be interesting to a non-Wikipedian reader). Note that even "edit war" doesn't get an article on the main namespace. I say delete or move to an appropriate page in another namespace. –Sommers (Talk) 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is irrelevant. Maybe it should be a sentence in the History of Wikipedia article. But it does not need a whole article to itself. Batmanand 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Easy enough. 1: no. "avoid self-reference". Therefore 2 and 3 are moot. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   21:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't finished yet... I had to stop and save what I had in order to take out the garbage (so that my dog wouldn't get into it)... nosey little brown bastard! Sweetfreek 07:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was finished, without studying the history of this particular conflict, it'd guess it's still be either too non-lame or far too lame to be included in WP:LAME. And in my opinion, if it's outside of the range in question, it's definitely a Needless Self-Reference. Was this incident something that makes technology writers of major Internet tech news sources wax lyrical, or just another idiotic edit war? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check the [history], dummy, I've been part of this mess for almost a year now, and I've read all the changes going back to the beginning. So just who hasn't been studying this? Sweetfreek 08:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying there's no material to write about. I'm just saying, do we need the posterity to remember some insignificant editorial squabble again? "The great big Wikicorporation coffee room penny jar squabble of February 2006", this time about a twenty-coin bill, oo? I've been reverting vandalism and stuff like that for a while now, and I sure won't write articles like "Vandalism of Wikipedia article on Endless Online". Nobody wants to hear how I get up at the morning, look at watch list, and revert trolling, or get bored at 3 am and revert the vandalism as it comes. People are grumbling about John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy article being retained, not to even mention crying for merge for Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) - and this was a case that got international media attention! The issue is not that you've not been studying the thing hard enough; the issue is that edit/revert wars happen here and they are pretty insignificant in the face of great cosmic scale or some other funny expression like that. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junkielover

edit

Delete, speedy if possible. Seems like a non-notable composer. If this is incorrect, inform me otherwise. SYCTHOStalk 00:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://www.radio.intelligentmachinery.net/artists/j.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasik evolution (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 February 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synods in the Church of England.

edit

Largely redundant with article Synod when it was created; now totally redundant, as I've just merged the remaining sentence. There was apparently talk of expanding this article several months ago, but if anyone has anything encyclopedic to say about Anglican synods in particular that can't go at Synod or Church of England, I encourage them to create a new page without the "." at the end. --Quuxplusone 00:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --maru (talk) contribs 02:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Baker

edit

Likely hoax. Even if I discard the easily-debunkable claim on the Yen, nothing else in this bio adds up.-- Perfecto 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Answer to the “Lady or the Tiger” and “The Discourager of Hesitancy”

edit

Tagged as nonsense, but iMO not patent nonsense. However this is Original research -- that is compeltely unsourced specualation on the answer to a notable literary puzzle. It is also poorly written. Delete DES (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Group + (The Financial Intelligence Review PrimeZone )

edit

Badly written article giving no reasons why this company is notable. The given webpage for the company doesn't exist and there's a copyright, all rights reserved message at the bottom! Aim Here 00:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I added two their publications,which IMO must be treated in the same way) mikka (t) 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Bus Route Display Alliance

edit


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Hey hey, an A7 that actually applies! Who'd a thunk? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beervana

edit

"At this point in time, outside of the Indie Underground scene, neither of these groups are very well known." Indeed, there are lots of google hits for a beer festival, but i can't find any for this band. The quote suggests why. Derex 15:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Umbrella

edit


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. It's obvious to me that this article needs improvement (someone has suggested making it List of names of English origin, which I think would work well), but that's not a reason for deletion, and there's nothing approaching consensus to get rid of it here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of English given names

edit

*Keep, there's no reason not to have this. How many verifiable English names can there be? Grandmasterka 07:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article is clearly just a stub for the moment, but the subject is encyclopedic and ca be expanded. Eusebeus 07:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this has no content other than unverfied, uncited lists of what any editor claims to be an "English-given name", whatever that might be. A list entitled "Names of English origin" or "Names of French origin" would be accpetable because the etymology of the names can be verified. This type of list invites anyone to add their own name (no matter what the origin) without any grounds to dispute that the name doesn't belongs on the list. It would be more appropriate to name the article "List of people who have added their name to this list". This is nonsense - we can do much better than this. Adhall 08:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or define 'English'. Does it include English-Asian names, names of foreign origin used by Englsih peolpe - if the answer is 'yes' then any name at all could be listed -Doc ask? 09:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,but to my knowledge, no such authority exists. --Doc ask? 09:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly -- the criteria for an entry (as the list is now) is subjective and open to interpretation - it either needs to be rethought, renamed or deleted altogether. Adhall 10:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beg to difer. If Norse-origin names, Angles and Saxon-orign names (originally Germanic) and many more of the races that have emigrated to Southern Britian over the centuries are considered 'English'. Then why not Asian immigrants? Or are we using some 'pure-English-race' mythology? --Doc ask? 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mythology? No, there is definitely an "English race." I hesitate to say "race" because we sound like we're talking about racism here, which this is not a discussion of, but there are uniquely English aspects to England that do not involve borrowing from other countries, including ethnicity and names. Your own narrow view that England has no culture and no heritage is itself POV; this article is (now) not. There is a "native" population of England just as much as their is a native population of Scandinavia - would you include Mohammed on a List of Scandinavian given names because there are a few Muslims in Norway named Mohammed? No! —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment** Out of interest, of the "approved" names left on the list, of the 13 male names, 4 are English forenames, by which I mean derived from Anglo=-Saxon; 8 are "imported" from non-English languages (French, German, Old Norse etc) and one - Lincoln - is a surname reused as a given name - and if that sort of name is to be counted, the list is potentially infinite. Of the 18 female names, again, 4 are of Anglo-Saxon origin, 8 are non-English, and a depressing 6 are surnames recycled. On this showing, I think I am forced to conclude that pro tem this is a bit beyond the powers of Wikipedia to make anything useful of, and I have changed my vote above to Delete. I might consider supporting a properly constructed and monitored article such as List of Anglo-Saxon forenames, List of Medieval Christian names used in England, or List of Forenames commonly used in England in the 19th Century, for example - but such lists would be of near-dictionary length and would need ferocious sourcing.Staffelde 16:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The name Lincoln, as described in its article, was originally a given name that evolved into a surname, not the other way around. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You must be reading a different article from Lincoln, or you are understanding "given name" in some different sense. Are you trying to extend "given name" to cover place-names as well? Lincoln started as the name of a town, then became a surname. This article, if words mean anything, is about names given as forenames, so L is a town-name, or a surname taken from the town-name, used as a forename. This is a perfect illustration of the sorts of problems that this article generates, and of the obstacles of understanding which will make it extremely difficult to get anywhere useful with it. Staffelde 00:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Potentially infinite lists (or lists of 75,000 entries) are all over Wikipedia, so the precedent is already set. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was okay, this one's a very difficult case. First of all, I will be discounting the views of everyone who opined solely because it's a suspected autobiography. The nominator himself argued for deletion "regardless of questions of encyclopaedic merit", and that's just not the way we do things here. It's not appropriate to delete an article merely because of who you think the author is (caveats about banned-by-ArbCom sockpuppets notwithstanding), and there's equally no point in counting the opinions of those who said "keep because I don't like the nomination". Now, the remaining opinions hinge on WP:BIO; there have been claims that she does and does not pass the notability guidelines. Does she count against "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers"? Frankly, it's hard to tell, as evidenced by the split here. There is no clear case either way, so the final closing will have to go down as no consensus. Those who wish to hurl rotten tomatoes and uncouth epithets are reminded that I have a talkpage somewhere. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Coneway

edit

I think this is an autobiographical entry, judging from the text on the image uploaded by User:Nelly06, whose sole article this is, so delete for that reason, regardless of questions of encyclopaedic merit Staffelde 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that WP:AB means precisely that self-written articles SHOULD be deleted, with a microscopically small number of exceptions. I am aware of her status as an author, which is why the article is nominated here for discussion instead of having a "speedy delete" tag for vanity on it, but regardless of who she is, my understanding is that she shouldn't have written the piece herself. Staffelde 01:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(See below for my reply) Batmanand 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A TV journalist and published author with books at Amazon is an obvious keeper. Vanity is neither a CSD nor a criteria for deletion in my book. This is wikipedia-anyone can edit an article and POV issues are dealt with through editing. -- JJay 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can only repeat, WP:AB - or are you in WP:IAR mode?Staffelde 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AB states that the practise is "strongly discouraged", not prohibited. The notability criteria are policy, which have been argued over for a very long time, and are now roughly equivalent to a consensus. If you want to change that, there is a lively discussion going on here, which you are more than welcome to join (and thus change AfD policy). But until then, I would urge people to keep and improve. Batmanand 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:AUTO can be fixed. The fact that her principal claim to fame is being a published author, but that her books are published by a vanity press, is harder to fix. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   13:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Autobiography is difficult to prove and its discovery is not really the optimum role for editors. We are not detectives. Furthermore, the autobiography guidelines are not policy and do not mandate deletion or AfD (for evidence see our non-deleted article on the founder of this project). While I do not think autobiography is a good idea, it has no relevance for me in AfD debates. -- JJay 02:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above where I said the issue has no relevance for me. If this is still unclear, please review all my comments on this page. On a side note, given your concerns with vanity and autobiography, is there any good reason for the six Union Jacks on this page? -- JJay 21:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed all your comments on this page. It remains the fact that (1) the Sofia Echo article "about" her relegates mention to a trailing paragraph and does not actually support the claim to notability as a "popular" TV host,(2) the books are self-published with no evidence of significance or sales and (3) the subject scores around a dozen unique Google hits, half of which are adverts for her books. You have decided you want this article kept, which is your prerogative, but there is absolutely no indication that she passes WP:BLP, which makes this a vanity autobiography, exactly as stated; the facts in this article originate with someone who says of herself that "Nelly Coneway is one of the most talanted and respected Bulgarian journalists in America". About half of what she posted has been removed as unverifiable puff. Of course none of those things individually necessarily make a subject non-notable - Robert Gunther self-published his book and still has an article, not least because the book is cited as a primary source by many biographies of famous 17th and 18th Century scientists - but together they make a pretty strong case for genuine scepticism about the importance of this subject. And the union flags are there so I can find my comments in long interleaved discussions - but even if that were vanity it would be irrelevant as an argumentum ad hominem and because I have not created a Wikipedia article about myself. Your faith in the improtance of this person is touching, but in the absence of any verifiable evidence of importance, I think somewhat misplaced. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   14:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't see anything new in your comment so I can't change my opinion. Not even sure why you want to endlessly debate the same points. It's not that I have decided that "I want the article kept", it's because I believe that Ms. Coneway qualifies for inclusion and makes a nice addition to the encyclopedia. Also I think you should seriously reconsider this flag thing. Imagine what a mess it would be if everyone did that. -- JJay 02:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the linkspam, added the fact that the books are self-published, and removed the Sofia Echo article as it's actually about her son (although the fact that it fails to corroborate the claim that she was a popular TV host may be significant). This article has started from the point of view of obvious vanity and ended up as marginal per WP:BLP since the major claims to fame appear hard to verify. If it was tagged for speedy as orignally written I'd have userfied it; if it was tagged for speedy as written now I'd probably have done the same. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   13:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough for an article, as long as it's all verified Prodego talk 02:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:AUTO is an editing guideline, not a deletion policy. Jkelly 03:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.... note that her books on Amazon have no rank. Her publisher is Infinity - a self publishing house. The buy books on the web (BBOTW) site is associated with Infinity Pub, apparently a marketing arm for self-published authors. Note that the bios are from the BBOTW - and are probably self-authored. No independent verification of claims. No Ghits for Bulgarian National TV "hits" other than BBOTW bio. No verifiable notability. Does not appear to meet standards for authors (WP:BIO) —ERcheck @ 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Appearing on Amazon is not enough rationale to justify an entry; ERcheck's point about self-publishing adds to the sense the subjkect is nn. Eusebeus 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sufficiently notable as journalist and media personality. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 09:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per arguments above. Jcuk 11:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Person could still be notable as a journalist, but I have to agree that non-ranked books on Amazon are not impressive. Any good vanity press or self-publisher will offer Amazon listings. So it's no indication of how good the book is nor how many people read it. - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Further to above comments, particularly JJay's, while I grasp the point being made and while I agree that autobiography is not something to go deliberately hunting, my reading of WP:AUTO is nevertheless that the practice of creating one's own article, whoever one is, is STRONGLY discouraged. You are quite right to point out that "strongly discouraged" does not equal "totally forbidden" or "automatically deleted", but I think the guideline, if it means anything at all, must mean that there have to be unusually good reasons for allowing a self-created article to stand. I don't believe that in this instance there are unusually good reasons. This woman is not of sufficient stature as a journalist, author or "meeja" person to justify bending what is a very strong guideline. She comes in with no more than 57 Google hits, most of which are to self-promoting websites and duplicates. Ditto her publications, and her TV and journalistic ventures are significantly undistinguished. I just don't think her achievements are such as to merit bending what is quite a strong practice guideline.Staffelde 12:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • You are fully entitled to your interpretation, but try to maintain perspective. Guideline does not mean policy. This guideline mandates no action. It is a guideline for editing articles. Any article can be entirely rewritten. This is the case for many if not most of the offerings here. The "original sin" of an article's creation- in this case unproven I would point out- has no bearing. Lastly, I would assume that all guidelines are important to the people who care about them. When you repeatedly talk about a "very strong guideline" or "quite a strong practice guideline", I immediately wonder where I can find our "very weak" guidelines. -- JJay 13:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you check the books? The only English language book listed on Amazon is published by Infinity Publishing, a self-publishing company (i.e.vanity press). The two Bulgarian-language books are also published by the same publisher. So the claim to be a "published author" is weak in the extreme. The cited source from the Sofia Echo also is not actually about the subject, but about her son. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you're going to declare that self-publishers are inherently non-notable, are you ready to nominate this musician for deletion because she has released all her albums through her own label? Monicasdude 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the nom's argument above. Are we discussing autobiography now or Ms. Coneway's achievements? She is discussed in The Sofia Echo story, which confirms her TV role in Bulgaria. I also tend to doubt you or anyone else has made an exhaustive search of Bulgarian language sources. -- JJay 14:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-publishers are not vanity by definition and being self-published does not automatically equal non-notability. A variety of famous authors self-published work for which they could not find a regular publishing house. It's the fact the book has no Amazon sales rank that should set off the alarm bells. - Mgm|(talk) 20:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(readjust indents) Well, I am not saying she shd not be on the Bulgarian Wikipedia... But it seems from the Eng lang sites that she was not a major presenter, and does every TV presenter on every channel in the world automatically merit an article?
I would hate to see a duff article scrape through simply because I have blurred the reasons for deletion (now I am turning to Ignore All Rules...). This article was definitely begun by the subject, as is clear from the caption ("Me taken by my son" or something similar) on the image of the subject that User:Nelly06 uploaded at the same time as placing the initial article (see user contributions, of which there are VERY few). That would normally count as Vanity and be off straight away. In which connection, the following is from WP:VAIN: "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." That seems fairly clear to me.
This lady has, it is quite true, a far more verifiable public profile than most, but the other information regarding her achievements from elsewhere is difficut to evaluate and borderline; and I am still think that autobiographical article + borderline significance should = delete. IF someone else thinks she is important enough, let them start it off again. (This is pretty much what JzG is saying below).
I am concerned that, if this is allowed to stay, it makes a sort of back-door precedent for borderline "semi-notables" to create their own entries and then rely on the force of inertia to keep them, whereas surely the trend of thought so far has been in the other direction. Staffelde 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The purpose of WP:AUTO is to discourage non-notable people from writing about themselves. From the page: If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later. So some people want to have it "sooner" rather than "later". What's the harm in that? If the article is verifiable and the person notable, we allow it to stay, regardless of who created it. So, is she notable? I'd say no, if not for the Bulgaria factor - she is likely notable in Bulgaria, so the cultural bias factor wins the article over for me. Turnstep 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per JZG. I understand this is borderline, but I really doubt her notability and her relevance in the English wikipedia. If an article gets independently created in the future I might change my mind but for now, with autobio, self publishing and no clear indicator of notability I say delete. --kingboyk 21:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Changed to strong delete, after the vanity publishing discussion and further analysis of the Sofia Echo article. Also, this is not the Bulgarian wikipedia where she might have a case for notability. Too bad I split up from my Bulgarian ex though :( --kingboyk 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Staffelde. (Opes 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:BIO ComputerJoe 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. notability/verifiability OK. mikka (t) 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Fails WP:BIO. What more needs to be said? FCYTravis 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and a half. Fails WP:BIO, and despite the screaming that WP:VAIN somehow doesn't apply here because she's a notable Bulgarian personality, it's still vanity. True, it's not a speedy, but are there many Bulgarians coming to en-wiki to read up on their TV personalities? RasputinAXP talk contribs 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-published books? Writes for the "Bulgarian Echo" in LA? The whole "vanity article" kerfuffle is a red herring: it goes to motive, not to appropriateness -- as in, why else in God's name would anyone think this was worth an article? --Calton | Talk 00:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should generally keep an author with hits on Amazon. —Brim 05:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the books have no or stratospheric sales rank (these have none at all) and are puiblished by a vanity press (these are). It is trivially easy to get a book published by a vanity press, assigned an ISBN and added to Amazon. Not one single copy need be sold in order to achieve that. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   13:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what she says about herself, sure. What to the reliable external sources say? The only cited on merely mentions that she was on TV at one time, does not say how popular those shows were, how prominent her role was within those shows, or indeed how popular she is. Which, in a newspaper article supposedly establishing her notability, seems to me like a glaring omission. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   20:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sofia Echo story says "David was born to an American father and a Bulgarian mother from Vidin". Doesn't sound like a famous TV star to me. You think they'd write about Jay Leno's kid having a "father from New Rochelle, New York"?! Read further down and it seems she presented the 'the Budo and Samurai sports show'. I'll leave you to ponder how popular that might be. --kingboyk 20:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Popular enough to be on national television, I assume. Kappa 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sofia Echo article reads like the autobiographical entries. Perhaps submitted by the author herself. The Sofia Echo article refers to an award by GWB to the son. This is not notable. "Presidential" awards are routinely given to all levels of education - for example, the President's Physical Fitness Award. Students within all schools who achieve a certain level can receive these preprinted congratulations from the president; it is something that the schools can order. This may be the President's Education Award Program, which again can be ordered by schools. I suspect that this was submitted by the author. —ERcheck @ 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete; Author requests deletion. Tom Harrison Talk 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horn (audio)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Stones

edit

Delete. Non-notable, poor quality. jareha 01:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Poor Man's James Bond

edit

Delete as non-notable book. It dosen't seem to be very notable, but I'm not very sure either. Inform me if I'm wrong. SYCTHOStalk 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy KEEP rewritten. mikka (t) 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Yuba River State Park

edit

One sentence article that doesn't give notability. Kerowyn 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've overhauled it to make a reasonable stub out of it - so keep. Staffelde 01:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Utopianism. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utopanism

edit

Delete or rewrite viciously This article looks like it was generated with one of those "gibberish generating" scripts. Bugturd Talk 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was del mikka (t) 01:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Rogers (writer)

edit

Obvious self-promotion by a freelance journalist of little note. Recommend deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.44.219.212 (talk • contribs) .

Orphaned AfD. —ERcheck @ 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's one vote; SPOWJ was a comment :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 09:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ru'la'Lax

edit

Original fiction - written by Trendon. Interestingly, the only Google hits we get are at trendon.blogspot.com. -- RHaworth 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--68.198.156.138 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Belle

edit

She's a high school band director. She's apparently reasonably competent; her band won a statewide competition in 2004. But that's not enough to be notable. dbenbenn | talk 02:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines do not specify whether "major music competition" means a Texas competition for junior high school bands. Even if it did, it doesn't mean that everyone associated with the band deserves an article. Capitalistroadster 03:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete both. I shall userfy the Jimbo Kersten one, however, for politeness' sake. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of South Campus and James "Jimbo" Kersten

edit

Unverified student position at Lake Forest College. No Google hits. Delete. Kusma (討論) 02:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also adding the related article James "Jimbo" Kersten to this AfD. For this page, I say copy to User:Kerstj and delete as a non-notable vanity page. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also delete that one as vanity. Kusma (討論) 04:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death List

edit

Fast Delete - seems to be an entry about a website forum (basically a free advert at that) that is constantly vandalised by members of that forum Gretnagod 02:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having considered everything I have changed my mind and realised that this site DOES deserve an entry. If for no other reason than its inclusion in The Sun, the highest circulating English-speaking newspaper on the planet. However, IP addresses of edits should be closely monitored for vandalism - ie if its true that users of that site are altering other Wiki entries to fake deaths - ie Clive Dunn - then it should be pulled. There is no way it can be merged because, as much as anyone did, the creators of Death List actually invented the idea. Gretnagod 16:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this site linked from dead pool claims to have a history of the concept since 1591. So I hardly think it's fair to assert that the creators of this website invented it in 1987. TMS63112 17:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that site links from Deathpool. TMS63112 17:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but we could argue over what an actual concept actually is, because I think the concept of this is different enough to other similar concepts to warrant inclusion. It is surely more than a forum as it tracks the day to day well-being of many people, some famous and some less so but all who are in, or were in, the public eye. Gretnagod 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the differences between this Death List and other dead pools or Deathpools I belive the concepts are all similar enough that they could all be covered by one merged article with appropriate redirects. TMS63112 17:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep .. Notable website, interesting subject matter, verifiable media references. 18,800 googles for ["deathlist.net" ++Deiz 03:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per arguments on talk page. Canadian Paul 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be KEPT!! (Lady Die, DL member)

Keep.. Significance of site indicated by factors other than the number of site 'hits'; in particular, acknowledgements from reputable news sources (i.e. The Sun, The Guardian, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Esquire, Yahoo!, etc). --In eternum+ 16:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is hardly a flash in the pan as it has been going for 20 years

Merge and redirect to Deathpool or Dead pool (which should probably be merged into each other). TMS63112 20:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me too. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant, informative and entertaining website. Death List is not a gambling game nor do members submit individual lists as in a Dead pool orDeathpool. It is almost certainly an unique format (as suggested above by Gretnagod) and justifies a separate article.Obi 21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with the above post. And surely this matter should be decided soon as it is dragging on a bit. 88.109.174.168 17:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin By my count, four of the 6 users who have suggested this article be kept are either anonymous IPs or their only contributions are related to this AfD. TMS63112 17:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment relating to above statement That is not relevant - it's not the number who voice an opinion either way but what they state. Death List relates to a unique discussion area and members do not choose their own picks, as in Dead Pools etc. Instead, a central committee makes the decisions and it is up to members to provide updates on the health and well being of those listed. The above post should be discounted. Gretnagod 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment User:TMS63112 seems to have a problem with anonymous users BUT on their very own page they admit they made many contributions to Wiki before registering. Pot, Kettle, Black? Gretnagod 17:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response I don't have a problem with anonymous editors or with new editors. We were all new once, and I contributed anonymously to many articles. But, for better or worse, it is standard proceedure in closing AfD debates to look at the history of users contributions. The opinions expressed by users who have a history of contributing to Wikipedia are generally given more weight than the opinions of those who show up to "vote" on a single AfD. Therefore, I was simply pointing out information that the closing admin may want to consider. TMS63112 17:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TMS63112: If you are suggesting that my opinion on this matter should be taken less seriously because I have not commented on other Wiki articles, I most seriously object. Just because I couldn't care less about most of the topics covered in Wiki does not mean my opinion with regard to this topic is less valid. --In eternum+ 00:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. I got 9,610 Google hits, but only 271 of them are non-duplicates, effectively nullifying most of the arguments to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knugen Faller

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despond

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Engine

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Xtremes

edit

NN vanity. I am also including Underground Cavern in this AfD Ezeu 02:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 10:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Nelson

edit
  • There are many academic user bios of current researchers who are not particularly well known. There are grad student bios, C.V.s, and even undergrad bios. It does not make sense to target new articles of this nature when there is no automatic mechanism to remove the many many academic bios that already are wiki articles. Because of this inequity, I suggest the academic bios NOT be deleted or userfied until a reasonable method of vetting the huge number of existing bios it instituted.

Vanity and personal publicity play a very different role in academics than they do in most other walks of life, and the notoriety of a particular research often depends more on that person's ability to sell and self-promote them self than on the quality of his or her work. I have found many wiki pages related to an active scientific field being used as shameless self promotion by one or another research group that would like to increase their notoriety, and interlinked academic bios are a big part of this. Most hot research topics now have wiki articles of this nature. Are those who acted first in this regard, those who are better seller of themselves, are they to be grandfathered in? This would make wiki a tool in deed. --Androidchild 05:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. userfy andrew l nelson 02:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move to Userpage Article is WP:AUTO. Notability might be arguable, but its still a WP:AUTO Bugturd Talk 02:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenfolk

edit

A cryptozoological race. Unfortunately too crypto to have been heard of anywhere but Wikipedia. Allegedly in southwest England but speaking with a North Norfolk accent - strange. -- RHaworth 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing of nomination made me grin :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Being from Cambridgeshire, myself, I can verify the claim that there are rumours/legends of "fenfolk" within the local community. They're said to be the products of inbreeding within the fen-peoples. I suggest that the southwest-southeast issue was merely an typing error, and, therefore, have changed the article to reflect this. James H. 12:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The preceding unsigned vote was added by 85.12.65.33, a School-IP persistent vandalism source. Lukas (T.|@) 12:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had trouble finding any evidence for this myth that isn't just local stories, or news of sightings passed on through word-of-mouth. But I think I may have something here:

"Day by day the feasting continued, until its noise and the festal joy of its revellers aroused a mighty enemy, Grendel, the loathsome fen-monster. This monstrous being, half-man, half-fiend, dwelt in the fens near the hill on which Heorot stood. Terrible was he, dangerous to men, of extraordinary strength, human in shape but gigantic of stature, covered with a green horny skin, on which the sword would not bite. His race, all sea-monsters, giants, goblins, and evil demons, were offspring of Cain, outcasts from the mercy of the Most High, hostile to the human race."

- Hero-Myths and Legends of the British Race (Chapter I) - by Maud Isabel Ebbutt (Published 1910)

I know it isn't much, and I doubt you'll take it as any sort of proof, but at least I tried. Oh, and I meant "East", not "West"... That'll teach me for not proof-reading.--Grubbles 15:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a punishment for your misbehaviour, you will write an essay on the topic: "What is the difference between my made-up 'fenfolk' and the description of Grendel in l.102-106 of 'Beowulf'"?
wæs se grimma gæst   Grendel hāten,
mǣre mearc-stapa,   sē þe mōras hēold,
fen and fæsten;   fīfel-cynnes eard
won-sǣlig wer   weardode hwīle,
siððan him scyppend   forscrifen hæfde.
Oh yes, and you can learn and recite the first three chapter of the poem by heart please, by tomorrow. ;-) Lukas (T.|@) 15:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- Well, I know nothing of any poem, but I found all that on this site Clicky ... hmmm. So, short of getting someone to write a book for me to quote from, I've got no way to prove this myth? ... Well, at least, to the extent a myth can be proven. At least chuck it in WP:BJAODN, it took a rather long time to write.--Grubbles 16:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator. --Deathphoenix 12:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting in Georgia

edit

This was one of many articles in the list of this AfD, which I closed as Delete all. However, I am uncomfortable with deleting this article along with all the others because it's a different cookie from the other articles I deleted. The article as it stands needs some serious work, but with similarly-named articles such as Scouting in California, I think this needs to be relisted on its own rather than be one entry in an AfD of many. No vote from me. --Deathphoenix 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, could use some help in salvaging it-when those of us at the Scouting WikiProject saw what was happening with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BSA local Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges, we decided that the time was overdue to convert the Council lists into state articles, as we had been discussing and which we are in the process of doing. Someone has put in all sorts of work here, but not encyclopedically, including use of ALL CAPS*yuck*. There are similar articles now for each state, I'd love to have some help in cleanup. Chris 03:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacratic Inquisition

edit

Non-notable junk or original research. Delete as quickly as possible. --Nlu (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Roberts

edit

This was a hoax the last time it was created, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Roberts. It is still not believable, as there is no such child of the Earl of Shaftesbury and his children would not likely be named "Stefan" anyway. Delete. Kusma (討論) 02:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Bengtson

edit

Not notable. Ezeu 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable group with seven members. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue flame woods

edit

A game with "7 members", created mid-January 2006. Delete (or speedy as nn-club). Kusma (討論) 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enriched limit

edit

Non-existent technical term DV8 2XL 03:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links seem to have to do with "enriched limits" relating to Abelian categories that my own search turned up, if I'm interpreting them correctly. Disclaimer: I'm not a mathematician. --Christopher Thomas 07:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as low on context and unverifiable. Stifle 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Term is O.R. and statement about uranium demonstrably erroneous. --Ste. Anne 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I asked the author to provide a reference if one exists. The definition of it makes no logical sense to me personally, but that might not mean anything (I am not a physicist); "maximum number of ions in an element" strikes me as jumble of terms in a way which makes no sense. But again, I am happy to be shown to be totally wrong in this. --Fastfission 03:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be nonsense. pstudier 03:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All I can find online are references to this Wikipedia article, and references to a completely unrelated meaning in mathematics. Searching on "enrichment limit" gives multiple links to more conventional discussions of uranium enrichment, and a link to limits to concentrations of substances in a water supply before Bad Things happen, which is unrelated to this article. As far as being used as a term in chemistry, I can see how the article contents might be a mangled version of some chemical concept, but it looks like gibberish as-is from what I can see. --Christopher Thomas 06:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have never heard of this term, after reading the page I suspect that it might be a case of patent nonsense.Cadmium
  • Delete Can find no evidence for the term. There is an enrichment limit, but that's usually a legal licensed limit, not a fundemental physical limit Salsb 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both sentences are erroneous. When you enrich something, you increase the ratio of one isotope in relation to another, and I'm pretty sure most nuclear weopons are enriched in excess of 90% in U-235. Lcolson 13:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concept not physically valid. For example, AVLIS could reach extremely high enrichments. Simesa 12:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stonecypher, The Stonecypher

edit

Article about an artifact and central plot device from the novel Stonecypher Road (Amazon), that itself does not have an article and gets only 27 hits on Google. The history contains a copyvio from Amazon too [8]. Delete. ×Meegs 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Def

edit

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, and should not include such things. Thatfunkymunki 03:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 10:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Duff timeline

edit

There is no need for biographic figures to have timeline articles associated with them. Any relevant information ought to be included on the Hilary Duff page. I would be alright with a merge if there's any information worth moving over, but that isn't to say that the Hilary Duff article ought to include a timeline like this. NoIdeaNick 04:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the relevant and significant information judiciously into Hilary Duff. Some of the material is not of great importance such as appearance of Total Request Live. Other is crystal ball material such as the supposed start of her tour in 2007. Capitalistroadster 04:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistroadster has good reasons for merging, but they lead me to believe it should be deleted. Royboycrashfan 06:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barefoot Manner

edit

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC —Wrathchild (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The article says that they have released three albums and WP:Music requires a two album minimum; one of their releases is mentioned on allmusic.com. I think that the article should certainly be cleaned up as it the tone is far too demotic and falls below that required for WP encyclopædic standards.  (aeropagitica)  07:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Allmusic.com lists them although with only 1 album listed. 27,600 Google hits for "Barefoot Manner" many of which appear to be about them see [9].

This South Carolina gig guide shows them at playing at a theatre two days after Robert Fripp so they must have some following see [10]. Capitalistroadster 08:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Lavaishe

edit

The Library of Congress is unaware of this gentleman. Pilatus 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Schmidt

edit

Possible vanity page, or just a stub bio on a non-notable person. Kevin 04:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critiques of The Purpose Driven Life

edit

This is a POV screed against The Purpose Driven Life. After I suggested that putting 17 links to anti-Rick-Warren articles in the article about his book might be excessive, and that instead User:Fides Viva ought to find a few choice quotations from those articles to quote from, "Critiques of The Purpose Driven Life" was created. This type of link-dumping is simply not encyclopedic. JDoorjam 04:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a liar. I have not been link dumping. I have been placing links to critical articles, essays and audio resources that expose the horrendeous false teachings of Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven® Movement, that each and every person can research into for themselves. The book by Warren is a book of falsehoods and Scripture Twistings and should NOT even be promoted on Wikipedia in any size, shape or form, whatsoever. The amount of people that have already been deceived by it is an INJUSTICE!!! Everything was fine until you came along and deleted the whole lot and started demanding I do this and that. I have never interfered with your work on Wikipedia, why disturb mine? Either leave ALL the links to the critiques in the main article or leave them in the new section I started. Thankyou Fides Viva 08:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your behavior is unacceptable and anti-Christian. Wikipedia has articles on Mein Kampf, The 120 Days of Sodom, the Necronomicon and even Jack Chick. We promote nobody. We document, catalog, ennumerate and list. We are an encyclopedia, and we don't take sides. --Agamemnon2 11:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was BJAODN. Mailer Diablo 05:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu's Wager

edit

BJAODN. Obviously created as a joke. No references (wait...let me check my copy of the Necronomicon just in case..) However, good candidate for Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 04:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete & redirect to The World's 10 Worst Dictators. Mailer Diablo 05:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The World’s 10 Worst Dictators

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lico Laats

edit

Delete per WP:NMG Tycoonjack 04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lico Laats has been a great influence upon a number of lives in their college environment and is quickly growing in popularity and renown. Their style of beats is a unique blend of broad influence and is the next step in underground freestyle. Wikipedia can and should leave this article upon Wikipedia as it will show a great deal of wisdom and foresight on the part of Wikipedia administrators, and when Lico Laats is a well known name among those who listen to independent music and underground freestyle, it will be great advertising for Wikipedia.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 72.24.245.72 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not meeting WP:MUSIC. Also, Wikipedia is doing just fine without any promo from these unexceptional artists. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and also as a vanity page. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, blatant vanity page. Royboycrashfan 06:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Batman2005 06:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete they're obviously trying to be the bomb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.217.74.225 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold-Lined Success

edit

Does not mention a record deal of anything of note. Another vanity band page. Banana04131 04:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for Speedy on second thought. Hope it pases. Banana04131 04:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it is vanity, WP:MUSIC states:

The fact an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under A7.

Ergo, this article cannot be speedied. It still should be deleted, though. Royboycrashfan 06:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frostano

edit

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Supposedly 600 years dead and only 3 Google hits. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]

Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 06:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Return to the 36 Chambers: The Dirty Version. Mailer Diablo 05:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return To The 36 Chambers: The Dirty Version

edit

All the information contained on the Return To The 36 Chambers: The Dirty Version page can be found at Return to the 36 Chambers: The Dirty Version. This page is just an inferior version of that one. Delete. Lairor 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"west coast style"

edit

Advertisement for non-notable mountain bike instruction video. ThreeAnswers 05:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; nothing to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 10:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edwards AFB Airshow

edit

Found on Wikipedia:Dead-end pages. News-like article with a bad title, about the retirement of one specific F-117 Nighthawk plane. Delete. Kusma (討論) 05:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dead-end page. Royboycrashfan 06:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Edwards Air Force Base, where any relevant information on the air show can go until the air show has enough info. to merit its own article. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 09:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 10:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DPS Paladin

edit

Non-notable gaming/forum term, and most likely a neologistic one. (Not to mention some POV problems.) Delete. –Sommers (Talk) 05:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Mann

edit

Delete. With all sympathy for those involved, this page regards the victim of an auto accident and is non-notable. Lockley 05:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legalities involved in the investigation as well as the fact it was featured on CNN twice make it notable enough for at least a short entry. Swatjester 05:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. 4.224.156.211 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain for now. Lockley and Swatjester both made good arguments. Delete/Move to Wikinews. Royboycrashfan 06:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all. Johnleemk | Talk 10:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Commando Combat System, Prof. Dr. Deepak Rao & Dr. Seema Rao

edit

Delete This is a pure vanity page. The anonymous user who created it recently spread the links to this article, and the systems website, in any military or hand to hand combat related page possible, without regard to rules about linkfarming and spamming. Also I do not feel this meets either notability, or quality standards for an encyclopedia (I say the notability standard being someone who is somewhat familiar with combat systems, I've never heard of this, and neither have either of the two professional fighters that I know.) Swatjester 05:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure vanity. Rorybowman 21:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per vanity. I'm with Swatjester, Army Ranger here and i've never heard of this stuff.4.224.156.211 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a google search turns up only 7 relevant topics: All of which are either advertisements from the instructer's brochure, or wiki-style self-entries at answers.com and other sites. Swatjester 06:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Page is pure vanity, persons above are likely the authors/subjects of the article. Google brings only 3 significant sources, "blackbelocombat" and the wikipedia article. Does not meet notability guidelines. Batman2005 07:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If this could be substantiated with evidence from other sources, it would be sufficiently notable to leave for NPOV editing improvement. However, neither the page, the founders pages, nor the website provide anything I have been able to confirm externally. It might be legit, but I can't find any evidence of it other than its own claims. - Georgewilliamherbert 08:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More evidence to delete' It should be noted that the three "do not delete" users above are all the same user, and have not signed. The links to the tripod.com website are non-verifiable, and the link to the realfighting.com is merely a brochure for the advertisement. Swatjester 08:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC) (note- comments have since been deleted, check history if interested.)[reply]
  • Why Delete? - If a few groupists dislike the article, it doesnot constitute grounds for deletion. What more confirmation is required about legit'cy after armed forces reviews & endorsements have been provided. How can the realfighting article be called a brochure? These are misleading statements & shouldnot be resorted to in a logical opinion poll. In any case, it really doesnt matter either ways. Delete or dont read. But dont be biased or get personal.06:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.30.30 (talk • contribs)

See the talk page: Advanced Commando Combat System is copied from http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com with permissons from the website owner, It is in fact my website, Prof. Dr. Deepak Rao. I have no objections to Wikipedia using material from my website & I would be happy if you republish the deleted page. 07:00, August 19, 2005 (India)

That should be proof enough that this page qualifies for deletion. Swatjester 02:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Once again u r using leading language. What if Prof. Rao has no objection to publish a page on his art ? It has been published in many places. It doesnot prove anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.30.30 (talk • contribs)

Because, multiple reasons. 1) It's not notable, a violation of Wikipedia policy. 2), Prof. Rao wrote it himself, a violation of wikipedia policy. 3) it's original research, a violation of wikipedia policy. 4) it's a vanity article, a violation of wikipedia policy. Need I continue? Swatjester 05:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I tend to agree that the article should be deleted, writing an article about yourself is not, as you claim, 'a violation of Wikipedia policy'. Wikipedia:Autobiography says it is 'strongly discouraged' (not forbidden) and is a guideline, not a policy. --Nick Boalch ?!? 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I stand corrected. Still, it should be taken in the aggregate as a bad faith effort. Swatjester 23:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not against policy, but it is strongly against guidelines because of the impossibility of writing in WP:NPOV terms about yourself, plus the fact that autobiography will often include facts which are not verifiable from reliable sources. So, like notability, it's a guideline not a policy, but the guideline is a rough-and-ready measure of ability to meet formal policy. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel it applies in this case, becaujse when taken as an aggregate with his other actions, it shows bad faith. While it may be a guideline, in this case it's clear there was no attempt at an NPOV article. Swatjester 00:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, absolutely, I don't think there's any question that in this case we don't have an article that complies with our fundamental principles. --Nick Boalch ?!? 08:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the ==vanity evidence== portion it's messing up the main AFD page.

  • Delete per Simon Cursitor and Guy. Comment: Don't remove other people's contributions. If you think the closing admin should disregard them, simply attach a note to that effect. Please sign your contributions with ~~~~ --kingboyk 21:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling in the originators, Prof. Dr. Deepak Rao & Dr. Seema Rao tagged as nn-bio but linked to this. Extend my Delete to cover both. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   22:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Motion to close Advanced Commando Combat System (consensus->delete)

edit
  1. Swatjester 11:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never listed an AfD before, I just figured it'd be quicker because a) there's clear consensus to delete and b) after a certain number of days it goes off the list right? If I'm off on this, I'll voluntarily retract that motion. Swatjester 23:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC Interpreter

edit

Delete Topic of no apparent significance. I can't independently verify its content; it may be a hoax. JonHarder 05:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While brainfuck is a real programming language, this article is of no significance. Swatjester 05:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academicpainting.com

edit

Essentially an ad for a site that turns up just 168 Google hits and doesn't even register on Alexa. ThreeAnswers 05:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: shows up as vanity to me. Swatjester 05:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Lucky 6.9 for having nothing but a link. - Bobet 13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sex Pirates

edit

No assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC. --Alan Au 06:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Fischer

edit

Delete non-notable political hopeful, lost only political race, google only brings two references, both from websites showing election results, no other notable qualities. Page was created by person who supposedly managed the campaign, same user had vanity page deleted. Batman2005 05:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OUCH! Delete, perhaps more gently. Eusebeus 08:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eminent_domain_in_Lake_Zurich

edit

Delete. If this was significant it could be mentioned in the Lake Zurich article, with NPOV issues fixed. There's nothing here to warrant its own article. WP:NOT a soapbox. Bad ideas 06:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that. Thousands of eminent domain cases go by in every state every year. Some are more notable than others, for example Kelo v. New London, which led to the SCOTUS ruling that opened the way for the attempt to build a museum over Justice Souter's house (while the intent may be spiteful, it meets the letter of the law as to a public taking.) Swatjester 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the Kelo case would be notable, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Z

edit
  • Delete. It's waaaaay too early for this article to have any basis in reality other than in the hypothetical. As the article itself mentioned, even the name "Generation Z" is controversial because members of this generation are still far too young to have developed any peculiar generation-specific characteristics. In fact, most of them haven't entered school or even been born yet.
I'd try again in 20 years or so when we know more about this generation's culture, and hopefully by that time we'll have found a much, much better name than "Generation Z", too.  ;) ekedolphin 08:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was used in (and the title of) this article which I found with Scholar Google, which according to its self “Google Scholar provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature. From one place, you can search across many disciplines and sources: peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, abstracts and articles, from academic publishers, professional societies, preprint repositories, universities and other scholarly organizations. Google Scholar helps you identify the most relevant research across the world of scholarly research.” [[12]] --Elfwood 10:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with others that it is far too early to begin writing an article about this geenration, however I do feel it is important simply to have it defined as the succeeding generation to Gen Y. This way it won't be a red link on other pages. Just my two cents. 87.80.126.226 10:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the above that we need it defined as the succeeding generation. "Generation Z" will suffice as a 'holding' name for some years until a proper name can be assigned. The points made in the article about this being the post 9-11 generation were valid. 209.30.169.106 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure it does. Generation Y is controversial and/or unsuitable in many circles as the name for the Gereration of the 80's and 90's. Why would Z, which is even more made up, POV, and fanciful name be appropriate?Gateman1997 19:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the objection is the name, I don't care if it's called something else. Call it 'The generation after generation y' if you wish, or 'the generation from 1997' onwards. Other generations sometimes have disputed names - 'Silent' generation or 'Air raid' generation? But as a generation, these children born into a post 9/11 world exist. So I think the basic entry should be kept (while not caring if it's Generation Z or something else.) 209.30.169.106 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Stifle. Of those 66000 hits, none of the top results have anything to do with the Generation Z in question. ♠ SG →Talk 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or rename "New Adaptive Generation" as it's called in Generations (book) article. (Of course these names are placeholders, until a more specific name emerges.) It doesn't hurt. 209.30.169.106's suggestion to add it at the end of the Gen. Y article would be even a better idea, if the latter the latter weren't already 59 KB long. --Army1987 11:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly I don't see why we need this now. "Generation Y" as it's sometimes called hasn't even had time to define themselves as a generation yet. How could "Generation Z" with no individual member any more then 5 years old have any definite characteristics? Generations define themselves, not the media, such as the "Baby Boomers" or the "Greatest Generation".Gateman1997 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under a fundamental misconception about what Wikipedia is: it's not here to document the emergent, it's about documenting what is already significant. Re-create this in twenty years if it becomes signifciant by this name. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   10:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; already userfied. Johnleemk | Talk 10:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Effel

edit

Undisputably true[13] and even a tiny bit controversial[14], but at 141 Google hits, not unambiguously relevant. Started out in userspace[15] and migrated to article. Earnest enough guy, but encyclopedic? Abstain.

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 06:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

*Delete per TerenceOng Swatjester 08:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect; merge not necessary for so little content. Johnleemk | Talk 10:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nouveau acropolis films

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Robert Amundsen

edit

Non-notable vanity. Fails WP:VANITY Oscarthecat 08:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vendetta 1923

edit

Non-notable, only 5 google hits [16] Oscarthecat 08:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. I concur, there is not even an assertion of notability here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Stumpff

edit

This article fails to demonstrate the importance of its topic Adhall 08:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator. --Cyde Weys 01:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3char

edit

Not very notable (140 Ghits for 3char aim); unverified; original research. Delete current version, though a generic rewrite might be OK. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 08:37Z

  • Speedy keep, Strong keep this is another one of those niche topics. Based on my knowledge and personal experience involving America Online, its security, and its users, there's a great deal to be said on this topic. Just not at 2AM. Notable, oft-ignored Internet subculture. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 09:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep requires the nominator to withdraw, or the nomination to have been disruptive or in bad faith. Please try another vote. Stifle 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator specified options other than deletion, and at the time of my vote, there were no votes for deletion. Whether speedy keep was applicable is ambiguous at worst, though as always, I'm open to interpretations alternative to my own :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 11:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree to keep this article alive. It has recently come to my attention this subject was scheduled for deletion. -Kenton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.20 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 2 February 2006

Please note that anonymous users are generally not allowed to vote. You can register an account if you'd like to contribute to this AfD :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, yes, although AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion. Anyone is welcome to have their say on an issue, but registering for an account does not automatically get you a 'vote' in the matter. Admins are entitled to discount votes from very new or unregistered users at their discretion. Stifle 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Unverifiable" is not accurate in this context, as use of this term can be verified through Google, which I invite you to do[17]. Thank you for taking the time to point out that speedy keep was no longer applicable here, though :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 11:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, weird how there are so many more Google hits for 3char "screen name" than for 3char. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 12:54Z
  • I have cleaned up the article, so am now withdrawing my nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 13:05Z
I've added more detail to the article, including citations involving media coverage of incidents in which screen names, including, explicitly and by design, "3chars" were compromised using bugs in AOL's account security. Thanks, a lot, Quarl, for taking the time to improve this article.
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dingbatter

edit

Article is about a locally used colloquialism in Carteret County, North Carolina. I don't think that the term is in widespread or even common usage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a website noting it as "widely known" in the area - I don't have a stake in this, but I think this article should stay. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zip2

edit

Non-notable company, and the whole article is a copyvio of the listed source. Kevin 09:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as copyvio, mis-spelled title, and WP:SNOW. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   09:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quake Retexutring Project

edit

This is non-noteable even if it does eventually happen. And the whole article is a copyvio of the listed source. Kevin 09:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per WP:CSD A7. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   10:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewr2 1

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1982 NBA Draft

edit

This article was created over half a year ago and is more or less utterly devoid of any content. I think that having an article like this is worse than having a redlink because it confuses the readers into thinking we have an article on the 1982 draft when we don't. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Scogin

edit

A singer in a Christian band, Allmusic knoweth him not and the 350 or so unique Googles are liberally peppered with search engine spammers and web forums, I didn't see any evidence of substantive notability. Everything here could be merged to the band's article (which is small) - with the possible exception of his marital status, which is trivia. This looks to be part of the Southern Baptist walled garden, but I am open to persuasion as always. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   09:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Scogin was ground-breaking for Christian hardcore/metalcore, and easily has the most recognizable voice in the Christian faction of the genre. I guess it would be good if that information were put within his Wikipedia entry, though, right? Anyways, I don't see the necessity to delete his entry simply because many people don't know much about him. However, alot of the information could be merged onto the band page ... but Scogin was not only involved with The Chariot, but the early Norma Jean and Luti-Kriss as well. I personally think that he has earned his place as a vocalist and is worthy of an entry ... however small. That's my opinion. Iffer 05:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Just because this guy might have played with a guy who then later was in "somewhat known" group that alone does not make him notable. Not enough google hits no proof of record sales about 5,000. Arbustoo 09:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I guess I forgot to make my opinion known. Maybe I wasn't clear ... he didn't play with a guy who became known, he is the guy I'm speaking of. I can't quite understand your last sentence, but that's of no consequence. Iffer 16:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What if rather than deleting the entry, verifiable biographic information was added? Also, how do we decide whether is influential enough to warrant his own wiki? As his influence is relative depending on who you are talking to, gauging it can be hard. For instance, to metalcore/hardcore listeners he is extremely well known, and his work has had a huge influence on the sound of both those genres. However, the average person would probably not even know that metalcore existed, much less who was or wasn't influential in its history. To note, Norma Jean has sold well over 5,000 records.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sin (musician)

edit

Non-notable person/band/company/whatever; WP:VANITY likely. Per WP:Music. Duja 09:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girls On The Dancefloor

edit

This page is only about a rumour that never happened, what they released in the end was an album called "Chemistry" which had quite a different tracklist. [18] Chsf 09:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 12:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA Drafts

edit

redundant per Category:NBA Draft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   09:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 12:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanullah De Sondy

edit

Tagged as nn-bio but there is an assertion of notability (in the last-but-one paragraph). That said, it's a pretty tenuous claim, I'm afraid, and even systemic bias does not really persuade me of the encyclopaedic merit of this subject. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   10:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 12:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHAMP CHAT

edit

Buried deep within this article is the germ of something which might be notable, so the speedy tag was not really appropriate. On the other hand, even if it is notable, this article is possibly woirse than no article at all because it looks so very much like a WP:NFT failure. I'm prepared to withdraw the nom if it's likely to be genuinely important, in the mean time I am bringing it here because it was tagged for speedy deletion. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   10:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep electronic components redirect; transwiki disti. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Components and Disti

edit

Blatant advert, unfortunately not a CSD. Nominator votes delete Zunaid 10:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben and tom's iradio show

edit

Podcast with one google hit. Non-notable podcruft. Delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Forgotten Realms; this is an editorial decision, so feel free to undo it. Johnleemk | Talk 15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dagnabbit

edit

delete non notable character. Melaen 10:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Robot

edit

Non-notable website. Only has 22 forum members (however, the forum is not the site's major attraction). Akamad 10:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of groups of six

edit

Useless criterion, giving a random collection of things. delete. I'm nominating this because similar 'list of 7s' has just been unanimously deleted Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Robideau

edit

Contains unsourced attacks on groups and persons. I'm thinking speedy, but bringing it here to make sure there's concensus. Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't see what the title of the page has to do with the article...? Somewhere in there, maybe there is a an event worthy of an article, but it would need drastic cleanup. As it stands, it breaches WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and fails to state the context of the article. --Whouk (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe this can get you an idea of why the name of the article is Robert Robideau. Fetofs 11:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That clears up a few things indeed. Someone complained to the info-en mailing on his behalf on how someone kept changing it. Normally, I would explain how material on Wikipedia is free to edit, but the crux of it is, that press releases aren't encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle 12:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theory and Practise of Wiki MainPage

edit

Appears to be a school project / debate forum about WP on WP, but is unencyclopedic in itself. WP not webhosting. Delete Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theory and Practise of Wiki - Lesson 1

edit

Appears to be a school project / debate forum about WP on WP, but is unencyclopedic in itself. WP not webhosting. Delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete un-encylcopedic MLA 11:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

This article is really unencyclopedic in a sense. But it is aimed to teach a certain number of people the main concepts of wikipedia and its use. It has a certain user-group of people who want to learn this in order to make their own, encyclopedic entries. You might call it something like help. And here we have various examples of help...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policy_trifecta says:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created by a community using a wiki. Those three basic characteristics suggest three basic guiding principles for editors, of which all others are corollaries: 

   * as an encyclopedia: Neutral point of view - our basic editorial policy
         o Corollaries: Conventions on verifiability, citation, original research, style, deletion, etc.

   * as a community: Don't be a dick - our basic social policy
         o Corollaries: Be civil, Keep your cool, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks.
         o Strongly implied are the one revert rule and consensus as opposed to voting

   * as a wiki: Ignore all rules - the suggested personal policy
         o Corollaries: Be bold, avoid instruction creep

As I surfed looking for answer to your deletion request, I haven't found anything that would be against my course! It has neutral point of view, it serves the community ... it is natural to have a course on what is wikipedia and how to use it inside wikipedia!

btw, there are several undeleted courses: a very similar content! Just take a look, please... http://www.jerryslezak.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=AdvancedMacro

Sincerely,

Petar

Comment: But it is unencyclopedic. Fetofs 12:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain me a little more in detailed what is the problem with my "unencyclopedic" entry? I don't want to bother the community; if you think that my content really doesn't belong here I'll move it somewhere else. But isn't it crazy to move a content on wikipedia outside wikipedia?

Petar


Thank you for the first positive answer! What others think, would it be ok to transwiki to meta?

Petar

Petar. It would be very helpful if you created an account for yourself as it is hard to communicate with you otherwise. However if you go to Talk:Theory and Practise of Wiki - Lesson 1 I will attempt to explain what people mean. DJ Clayworth 17:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to homelessness; this is an editorial decision, feel free to call me a WP:DICK and undo it. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Street Life

edit

delete not encyclopedic. Melaen 11:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Punkmorten 16:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryer

edit

No claims of notability in the article, googling for 'bryer graffiti' doesn't throw up anyone obviously matching this description --Aim Here 11:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newham Sixth Form College

edit

Entirely un-encyclopedic, non-notable school. May possibly be a parody. MLA 11:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - new stub lookin' much better. --Oscarthecat 13:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; editorial decision made to redirect to Biblical criticism. Feel free to call me a WP:DICK and undo it. Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Bible

edit

This article should be deleted ASAP for many reasons: 1) It's a violently POV fork that was created as a spin-off from Criticism of Christianity [23]. 2) It creates confusion with the topic of Biblical criticism which is an acknowledged academic area of study whereas 3) this topic is just trolling. 4) It has nothing new to add as it regurgitates paragraphs from entire articles that already cover this topic such as: Ethics in the Bible; Internal consistency and the Bible; The Bible and history; Science and the Bible. 5) In addition there are scholarly articles such as Bible errata; Biblical inerrancy; Anti-Judaism; History of the English Bible; Christian views of women; and many others that provide venues for the never-ending stream of "criticism/s of the Bible" (which other work gets attacked so much?) 6) At any rate, the tone and motivation of this article is thoroughly suspect and disgraceful and 7) it's therefore not deserving of a spot on a respectable and self-respecting Encyclopedia (i.e. it's not encyclopedic). IZAK 11:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 11:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swept-plane display

edit

lacks context , not cleaned up since april 2005. Melaen 11:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 11:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Smith (Television)

edit

Non-notable, vanity, reads like the guy's CV. WP is not a jobs board. See WP:VANITY. Oscarthecat 11:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is interesting, and obviously, this person has contributed to the story of BBC. antoga2000 13,55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. I'll just let the merge tags stay on the article. Johnleemk | Talk 15:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies in the Bible

edit

This article should be deleted for reasons similar to those stated above at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Bible: 1) There already exists Internal consistency and the Bible, so why is this article needed or justified (besides just being another avenue to attack the Bible)? Does every article get to have an "opposite" mirror-image nemesis created? 2) It's a violently POV fork that was created as a spin-off from Internal consistency and the Bible and Criticism of Christianity. 3) It creates confusion with the topic of the Documentary hypothesis which is an acknowledged academic area of study whereas 4) this topic is just trolling. 5) It has nothing new to add as it regurgitates paragraphs from entire articles that already cover this topic such as: Ethics in the Bible; Internal consistency and the Bible; The Bible and history; Authorship of the Pauline epistles. 5) In addition there are scholarly articles such as Biblical canon; Biblical inerrancy; Names of God in Judaism; Synoptic problem; Textual criticism; and many others that provide venues for the never-ending stream of "criticism/s of the Bible" (which other work gets attacked so much?) 6) At any rate, the tone and motivation of this article is thoroughly suspect and disgraceful and 7) it's therefore not deserving of a spot on a respectable and self-respecting Encyclopedia (i.e. it's not encyclopedic). IZAK 11:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Biblical inconsistencies article does not exist, it REDIRECTS to: Internal consistency and the Bible, and as is stated very clearly above, i.e. the Internal consistency and the Bible article is not the article we are voting on here! It remains thus far. Rather, the vote is to delete the newer article Inconsistencies in the Bible with its information that is redundant and tendentious. I hope User:Geni was not trying to confuse anyone... IZAK 12:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading the talk page of the article you have listed for deletion Biblical inconsistencies was moved to Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible as mentioned on the VFD page. If we then go to the talk page we find here that the article was then moved to Inconsistencies in the Bible. IT's the same article just a somewhat complex history.Geni 12:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geni: Now you are mentioning another REDIRECT. What you say still makes no sense since there is no Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible article because it merely REDIRECTS to Inconsistencies in the Bible (and it's already been made very clear that Biblical inconsistencies REDIRECTS to Internal consistency and the Bible.) This does not change anything because the basic information about all this can be found in the Internal consistency and the Bible article (so why make a comment about something which does not exist...very puzzling don't you think?). To have two articles about the same subject makes no sense whichever way you slice (or redirect) it. IZAK 13:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those redirect exist because the article has been moved around somewhat.Geni 13:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was userfy and then redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Chapman

edit

Uncertain of notability - magazine sub-editor. Oscarthecat 12:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was userfied, a block of original research articles all created by a single user. Comments left (WP:BITE and all). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   12:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nestle marketing strategies

edit

Original research, un-encyclopedic. Same user has created many Nestle articles, none of which offer pertinent information missing from the Nestle main article. Each reads like a high-school essay. Smells of copyvio too. Oscarthecat 12:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations for nestle
Analytical techniques of nestle
Nestle product & Services Analysis
4P's of nestle
Nestle research methods
Nestle marketing strategies
Marketing principles of nestle
Nestle sponsorship
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per author request (after a fashion). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Travel Directory

edit

New site with no Alexa presence at all. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. Article only consists of a link. StuffOfInterest 12:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the four other articles alone, as they didn't have their VfD tags on. Feel free to nominate them for deletion as well in a group if the need to. And remember to maintain a civil environment for all! :) - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Laws

edit

Non-notable. A manager at an airport. Does wikipedia need an article for every manager at every company? Oscarthecat 12:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same user has added other managers at the airport. Suggest they are treated in the same way, whatever the outcome is.
John Parkin (British businessman)
Lars_Friis
Chris Sanders (British Businessman)
John Parkin (British businessman)
Some airport-running-type-fellows are notable. Terry Snow, for instance, who probably doesn't have an article, is regularly gushed over in The Canberra Times. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pelicopter

edit

Probable hoax. A Google search finds several uses of this word, but none matching this article's usage.[24] Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify this article's claims. --Allen3 talk 13:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep; this is non-binding, and if a merge is agreed on later, do not cite this AfD alone as a reason to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise F.C.

edit

This is a perjorative nick-name. The article is without merit and a redirect fails NPOV. A brief note on Wimbledon F.C. is sufficient. Concrete Cowboy 13:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Milton Keynes Dons FC as this is the team it is a derogatory term for. However, exclude the Manchester United reference as the term has not been used extensively in association with them.


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

The result of the debate was closed. Redirects are automatically deleted along with the other AfD, but feel list to list at RFD if that doesn't occur. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise FC

edit

This is a redirect to Franchise F.C. which is AfD nominated and its fate should be the same Concrete Cowboy 13:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biscayne Landing

edit

NN housing development. Gets googles but nothing here that seems encyclopedia-worthy. Marskell 13:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Website Builder

edit

Blatant advert, found when trawling through Wikipedia:Dead-end pages. I'm surprised this lasted as long as a week without anyone noticing. It is not speediable (pity!) so delete the old-fashioned way. Zunaid 13:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Result : Speedy delete as nn-bio JoJan 15:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodan Petrovski

edit

SF author, no assertion of notability. No Amazon results. No obvious relevant Google results. Neglected article by 80.236.8.68 (talk · contribs) (sole contribution). Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-01 13:27Z


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning assistant

edit

While I feel for the author of this article and his or her well-written cry of distress, I think it counts as original research: research, I'm sure, that the poster would have preferred not to have done. - squibix(talk) 13:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted, copyvio - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   22:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Machine lifelong learning

edit

Possibly original research, also a straight dump of http://birdcage.acadiau.ca:8080/ml3/data/usr/admin2/Life-long%20Learning.htm (apparently by the author himself) StoatBringer 13:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News Alloy

edit

Not notable Sleepyhead 14:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xulfaces

edit

Not notable Sleepyhead 14:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete & redirect to Age of the Earth. Mailer Diablo 11:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to calculate Earth's Age

edit

Article that attempts to do just what the title indicates. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --Allen3 talk 14:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21 (comics)

edit

Delete no assertion of notability. Ruby 14:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Article (accurately) asserts that title is published by a major North American comics publisher, which satisfies notability requirement. Monicasdude 15:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not AfD'ing the publisher, I'm nominating this title. Ruby 15:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Why do you think the article doesn't include an assertion of notability? Can you cite another title from another major NA publisher that's been deleted as non-notable? Monicasdude 17:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm being sufficiently clear. They could be the foremost comic publisher in all of human history, and they could have a perfect history of publishing only notable comics, but this article does not assert this comic's notability. Ruby 19:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point entirely. Being published by the major publisher is sufficient to demonstrate notability, and the article reports that fact. Meets the 5,000-copy standard for publication generally, too. Monicasdude 19:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Packham

edit

I don't believe this meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC, and in any case, the page requires some serious cleanup. --Deathphoenix 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ingham

edit

musician un- notability Melaen 17:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 14:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MaybeKnot

edit

tagged for speedy but there is (inexplicably) no WP:CSD criterion for vanispamcruftisement, so you good people get to judge it instead. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exopolitics

edit

This article was VFD'd back in the day with a resolution to redirect to Extraterrestrial life. In May 05 the redirect was replaced by a stub of content taken from the target.

Current CSD states that speedy only applies in this case if the new article contains deleted content. Since that is not the case here, I am submitting AFD to review the new article.

For the previous VFD, view the Talk page for the article. Relevant diffs: [27] [28] [29] Keith D. Tyler 18:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 14:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exile Earth

edit

In a nutshell, by its own admission, it's completely unverifiable (only 200 people are privileged to read it). Cites no sources. And is written completely from some anonymous fan's point of view. Most likely a hoax. Would've speedied it, but seems to claim notability. Delete TheRingess 14:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 11:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Rancher 2 (video game)

edit

Delete nn game Ruby 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Punkmorten 17:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lam Puiyi

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as patent nonsense, no assertion of notability and recreation of deleted content. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 18:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric mayhew

edit

Nonsense. Author removed the speedy delete tag. Oscarthecat 15:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoraldus

edit

Delete.The Thoraldus article is a hoax, intentionally or not. Essentially it's just a name in a charter upon which the author or his spurious source has invented a biography. Many of its claims are false, such as that on the "Earls" of Lennox. Archibald Lawries' Early Scottish Charters lists in its index only one Thoraldus (alternatively Toraldus or Thorandus in other charters), a man who was the archdeacon of Lothian (as Lothian did not have its own bishop, he is the next best thing). The charter he was talking about, (Lawrie CLIX, p. 122) does not contain the name Thoraldus, but Thor (a different name), so the entire article is nonsense. This Thor is known from other sources, Thor de Travernent, son of a man called Swain, and held the manor of Tranent in Haddingtonshire - i.e. he was a native Anglo-Saxon lord of the area, and nothing to do with Stirling. Articles like this are why people call wikipedia a "dumping ground". - Calgacus 15:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not qualified to say whether it is complete rubbish or not (although it does appear that way to my layman's eyes, and is undoubtedly very badly drafted), but I do believe that Calgacus is qualified, so I'll go with him. (It was me who reluctantly gave it a minor Wikification, but almost Afd'd it instead)--Mais oui! 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was created by a brand-new User, here are the new User's contributions: [30]. I am also a bit worried by their new Redirect: Strivelyn. It redirects to Stirling, but should it? Or should we bung it over to Redirects for deletion?--Mais oui! 20:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, I wouldn't worry about the redirect from Strivelyn; it's quite harmless, and is a genuine early version of the name. The form of it in the charter he was talking about is Streuelyn/Strevelyn; but he got a lot of things wrong. The author seems to have been promoting a clan page. I reverted his edit to the Stirling page. The page has an "interesting" genealogy - quite spurious - and to make it work, the researcher changed the witness Tor vicecomite to Toraldo, Vicecomite; otherwise, the witness list he quotes is accurate, although either he or his source has murdered the Latin. The charter he talks about is preserved in the Liber de Calchou (lit. Kelso Book), it was issued about 1143 by David I to Kelso abbey, and it grants the Abbey use of a salt pan at a place called "Carsach". The only connection with Stirling was that it was issued there ("apud Streuelyn"). The author is correct that this Thor Swainsson was a sheriff ("vicecomes"), but other charters strongly suggest he was sheriff of Haddington (e.g. otherwise he only witnesses grants concerning territory in Lothian, where he would be an appropriate name). He can't have been sheriff of Stirling, because we know that the sheriff of Stirling in 1147 (a year when Sheriff Thor witnesses a grant made in Edinburgh to Dunfermline Abbey of a toft in Haddington), that the Sheriff of Stirling was a man called "Dufoc" (?Dubhtach). - Calgacus 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No Rfd then.--Mais oui! 20:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How long does it normally take for deletion? This is kinda taking ages. - Calgacus 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erox comix

edit

Delete nn manga studio Ruby 15:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jones's period proxy algorithm

edit

Delete: This is "original research"; specifically, it's an algorithm that was supposedly created by the unverified "R.C. Jones", and is completely superseded by standard algorithms in the field. Note, as well, comments on the discussion page by other individuals. Kuleebaba 13:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 10:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum darwinism

edit

Reason why the page should be deleted David R. Ingham 18:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was It sounds like my uncle Herbert Ingham's pseudoscience to me. The princiles of evolution an quantum mechanics are much to different for their to be such a connection.. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wojciech Zurek is a top researcher in quantum decoherence and is a Phi Betta Kappa scholar. This is his theory and I have received emails from him that my interpretation is close to his. In considering this matter please refer to his paper Quantum Darwinism and Envariance. It provides many interpretational sections on his theory and is relatively transparent. Here is one quote:

Quantum Darwinism differs from the traditional approach suggested by the von Neumann model of quantum measurement and offers a new perspective on the emergence of the everyday classical reality that is complementary to the one suggested by decoherence: Selection of preferred states occurs as a result of the ‘selective advertising’, a proliferation of the information about the stable pointer states throughout the Universe. This view of the emergence of the classical can be regarded as (a Darwinian) natural selection of the preferred states. Thus, (evolutionary) fitness of the state is defined both by its ability to survive intact in spite of the immersion in the environment (i.e., environment-induced superselection is still important) but also by its propensity to create offspring – copies of the information describing the state of the system in that environment. I show that this ability to ‘survive and procreate’ is central to effective classicality of quantum states. --Jockcampbell 16:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, still. This may be valid original research, as you claim, but that doesn't belong in Wikipedia either. About the physics, it appears that he is trying to re-invent statistical mechanics. David R. Ingham 18:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (Uncle Herb was a Cal Tech graduate.) David R. Ingham 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

edit

[This might really belong on the Talk page, but so long as it's reasoanbly short it can stay here for the moment.]

As I am the author of the entry under consideration but am relatively new to Wikipedia and am unsure of the quality of argument required to trigger the deletion of a page I will present a detailed and referenced refutation of this nomination for deletion. The nominator expresses two unsubstantiated points.

First: It sounds like my uncle Herbert Ingham's pseudoscience to me.

This point is easy. Quantum darwinism is the integration and perhaps the culmination of several topics of research carried out by Wojciech Zurek of Los Alamos National Laboratory and a group of collaborators over the past 25 years. These topics include decoherence,pointer basis and einselection and their numerous articles have been published in peer reviewed journals. A small subset of these papers are linked on the page and I will provide them here for easy reference:

If the theory of quantum darwinism cannot qualify as true science then very little can.

Second: The princiles of evolution an quantum mechanics are much to different for their to be such a connection.

This objection, is more plausible and may well be the unexamined opinion of the nominator but the connections between evolution and physics has been championed and documented by some of the most illustrious modern physicists including John Archibald Wheeler and many of those he taught and mentored. Zurek, a Phi Betta Kappa scholar and a former student of Wheeler's writes:

Both of these themes – quantum natural selection and envariance – have benefited from the inspiration and support of John Archibald Wheeler. To begin with, one of the two portraits displayed prominently in John’s office in Austin, Texas, was of Charles Darwin (the other one was of Abraham Lincoln). This was symptomatic of the role theme of evolution played in John’s thinking about physics (see, e.g., Wheeler’s ideas on the evolutionary origin of physical laws10). While I was always fond of looking at the ‘natural world’ in Darwinian terms, this tendency was very much encouraged by John’s influence .It seems quite natural to look at the emergence of the classical as a consequence of a quantum analogue of natural selection.

Another of Wheeler’s former students, David Deutsch, the founder of Quantum Computing and winner of this years $100,000 EDGE OF COMPUTATION SCIENCE PRIZE considers evolutionary theory along with quantum physics two of the four strands of knowledge that when understood in an integrated fashion will provide a deeper understanding of reality: David Deutsch's site

Lee Smolin, another distinguished physicist, has proposed the theory of cosmological natural selection to explain the existence of the finely tuned fundamental physical parameters making our complex universe possible. Smolin writes of the connection between physics and Darwinian processes:

There is only one mode of explanation I know of, developed by science, to explain why a system has parameters that lead to much more complexity than typical values of those parameters. This is natural selection.

Daniel Dennett, of Tufts University, perhaps America’s best known philosopher, in his book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, describes how Darwinian theory is proving a powerful tool in many areas of research. He describes it as a ‘universal acid’ that eats away at our anthropomorphic world view. New fields of study abound having an ‘evolutionary’ prefix. Here are a few of the many with Wikipedia links: evolutionary psychology,evolutionary linguistics,evolutionary epistemology and evolutionary economics.

In short, although some minds are ignorant of the well reasoned connections that have been made by reputable researchers between evolution and quantum physics, as well as numerous other fields, that does not mean that these connections have not been made and have been found by many to be compelling.

I cannot help but reflect that Wikipedia itself may well be seen as the accumulation of a body of knowledge due to a Darwinian process and appreciate that a mechanism is required to ensure the non-survival of entries reflecting vandalism, ignorance or cant. I trust that this mechanism is capable of properly evaluating these unfounded objections to the quantum darwinism page. --Jockcampbell 03:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to one or two points made here: first, Dennett might be America's best-known philosopher (I doubt it, but I might be wrong), but he's not a very good one — and you don't even refer to him as commenting on this particular theory (your argument seems to be: Dennett says that Darwinism is a pwerful tool, this theory refers to Darwinism, therefore this theory must be sensible/true/useful...). Secondly, citing other loopy theories like evolutionary epistemology and evolutionary economics doesn't do much to convince.
The points that I and others have made above are the ones that are key to whether or not the article should stay; telling editors that they're too dim or ignorant to understand the subject of the article probably isn't the most sensible way to argue against deletion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tedfuzz

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Can be classified under "Advertising or other spam". Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velvetism

edit

I added this page to Articles for Deletion because it appears to present original thought (or simply be a hoax), as a search for 'velvetism' on Google reveals nothing but a CD named that. -- Saaber 01:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Interesting that you say that. Velvetism is actually pretty popular among small socialist and anarchist circles in my high school. I guess word just spreads quicker in some areas than in others... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.224.135 (talk • contribs)

You mean to say you've never heard of Velvetism? Well sir, velvetism is a much larger movement then your awareness of it gives it credit for. Held in high regards by many who value the socialist and libertarian movement, Velevetism has grown imensely in the recent past. Velevetism is one of the few ideologies that supports legalization of vicitimless crimes such as marijuana use, which is the most likely reason that it has such a large group of teen agers and young adult followers. Maybe you dont support liberal values which is why you have not heard of Velvetism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.215.159 (talk • contribs)

Good lord, that's a full two so far. Or one person on two computers, with IPs that similar, but I can't tell. -- Saaber 04:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were-lions

edit

Should this even be here? I have never heard of any african religion worshiping a "were-lion" that lives in a castle. Also, what is an African Native American? Jay 16:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC) AfD Jay 17:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asknow.com

edit

blatant advert for 'The most advanced Psychic service available online' MNewnham 16:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Freedman

edit

Incomplete nomination by Toughlove – Ezeu 17:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Astrojet

edit

This band doesn't seem to satisfy WP:MUSIC and allmusic hasn't heard of them. DJ Clayworth 17:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic (band)

edit

An unsigned band, apparently nobody wants to re-write the article to make it not a vanity page. In that case deletion would seem to be the only option. Sachabrunel 17:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of Flat Earth Society Claims

edit

WP:NOT place for personal essay on the ridiculousness of the outrageous claims of a few ultra-fundamentalist lunatics. User should try geocities or maybe Evowiki. — Dunc|☺ 18:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Laogai institutions and List of reeducation through labor institutions

edit

unreferenced, unverifiable, and unmaintainable lists (possibly hoaxes ➥the Epopt 18:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I can't quite follow you. These are certainly not "unreferenced"; both articles explicitly refer to sources from a "Laogai Research Foundation", apparently an NGO monitoring human-rights abuses in China. Do you have any particular reason to believe they are not reliable? - The existance of Laogai in China as such doesn't seem in doubt, or does it? Of course, collecting information of this kind in a country like China is bound to be fraught with problems, and some warning remark about the degree of reliability feasible in the circumstances might be appropriate - but "hoax" seems really far-fetched. Lukas (T.|@) 22:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to the Laogai Handbook published by the Laogai Foundation, "Reeducation through labor" (ie. Laojiao) camps are the same as reform through labor (ie. Laogai) institutions. Read the Laojiao and Laogai articles, and you will find that they are not the same thing. I quote from Laogai: "It is often confused with, but completely different from, reeducation through labor, which is a system of administrative detentions." When sources such as these are used, one cannot help but wonder about the accuracy. The above lists used to contain such blatantly incorrect claims, which were unceremoniously removed when their accuracy was questioned. Such sources are definitely not reliable in my book. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Abstrakt 03:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSarcelles 18:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unsourced list. BlueShirts 03:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I could swear I've seen these before on AFD. I don't particularly care whether they exist or not, but I'm going to assert that they are lists of interest to very few people and appear to have been created just for the sake of having such lists. In other words, they are listcruft. Stifle 12:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bali Paradise or Corrupt Indonesian Hell?

edit

Hopelessly POV essay. -- RHaworth 18:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolsvandia (micronation)

edit

Another random micronation, no real reason to have this on Wikipedia. Stifle 18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Varifiable due to Wikipedia's validation rules, and found factual in a previous debate. I see no reason why that it should not be on Wikipedia. There are over a dozen unique hits. It is in the CIS database. Gamextheory 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You call this verifible: "During recent years Bolsvandia has made many attempts to gain allies on both sides of the Pacific firstly Russia and then Mexico. The only countries that actually wanted to form an alliance were Canada and Brazil, but as the finalisation of the treaty was formed Brazil pulled out leaving only Canada to bridge the gap." ? This is incoherent nonsense. Delete. --Gene_poole 05:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed content to make it more varifiable and easier to understand. Shown procedures taken. Gamextheory 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still unverifiable nonsense. Please show us the reference on the Canadian government's website of it's intention to establish an alliance with Bolsvandia. --Gene_poole 00:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital sign

edit

Copy of Digital signage, which was recently vandalised by adverts. Borrows information from both Digital signage and Narrowcasting, and contains spam to external websites. Delete as WP is not an ad service. Article also contains a 10-page list of useless definitions (such as "byte", "button", and "Del" [Yes, the delete key on your keyboard]). Kareeser|Talk! 18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am doing this free and altruistically and while I am doing it there is one that is dedicated to criticize before hoping to see the results. If I have chosen to make this page it is by the facts that occur with Digital Signage where it seems that the only thing that it matters are the external links and advertinsing and the order of such and not the information that is offered to the users.

Kormak.

Comment — What "results"? So far, you've stopped editing, and what you have done is promote links to external websites only to generate revenue and traffic, and place a lot of unnecessary information on the page. Your "definitions" are all copied from scala.com! Kareeser|Talk! 16:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Before criticizing and accusing is better to inquire a little.

TheMost of the content of that glossary is based on "The Digital Signage Glossary of Terms is an open source project with the cooperation of the Digital Display industry. D3 magazine would like pay special thanks to the digital signage software provider SCALA for their help in compiling the terms and definitions presented. If you would like to help us expand on these terms and definitions, feel free to email us with your ammendments, new terms, or suggestions [email protected] "

I thought that Wikipedia was an suitable place to offer that knowledge to the users, but if it isn´t then that somebody erase it.

Kareeser, finally I say that I do this in my free time, and I do that from an altruistic form. There is no one external link in that page, only knowledge.

Everybody can see the log of the modifications done to the page and see that while somebody was working ther other was criticizing before hoping to see the results.

Let's Wikipedia decide.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Chicago Goggles

edit

Unverifiable [35], unencyclopedic, non-notable. - Liberatore(T) 18:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Benacerraf

edit

Lack of notability or reliable sources Maxwell Kramer 18:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kamiecron.tk

edit

Delete; Appears to be vanity page, non-notable (only 2 results in Google for 'Kamiecron') Heycos 18:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Walls Have Eyes

edit

Internet forum that appeared to have had little impact in the outside world, so far [36] [37]. A related article has been deleted some time ago (Tangst) - Liberatore(T) 18:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A&M Entertainment

edit

Corporate advertising MNewnham 18:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Los (name)

edit

Unverifiable, potentially offensive Original Research LeFlyman 19:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nipponsaga

edit

Hello? What? A webcomic which is planned to go online in 2009? Which is in its planning stages between two "internet friends"? NO. - Hahnchen 19:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of small all-ages venues in the United States

edit

This appears to be a list that nobody is ever going to need and appears to have been created just for the sake of having such a list. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 19:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree. The title is clumsy, but I could see someone looking for this. Keep Jcuk 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The title makes it clear that this will include every church hall, every function room, every meeting hall in the whole of the USA. If there are less than a hundred thousand potential entires I'd be amazed. If this is for notable small venues, then a category will do the job just nicely. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list has the potential to include every school auditorium, city park, and family living room in the United States as they all qualify as locations where people of all ages may come together for an event (OK, some city parks may not qualify as small;-). --Allen3 talk 20:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. What is a "small venue" anyway? And why should we even care?! --kingboyk 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as per nom. I have my doubts about the articles listed here, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of notable all-ages venues or something similar --HasNoClue 21:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; almost meaningless list, and it's hardly extensive (5 items). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the page so I'll chime in here. I think it could be narrowed down to "notable" all-ages venues, and I understand that Wikipedia is not a random collection of lists; however, Wikipedia is full of lists that, while not of interest to everyone, are of interest to a very small subculture -- or even to a small fraction of that same subculture. For example, List_of_black_metal_fanzines. Believe me, a list of notable all-ages venues in the United States is a list that would be of interest to hundreds of people -- not just bands trying to set up shows at such venues, but also people interested in setting up similar venues in their towns, people writing about such venues (when local print media write about such venues, they invariably treat them as unique oddities), and so forth. I'm surprised that Wikipedians are acting like listings in Wikipedia are supposed to be popularity contests -- the "why should we even care" comments above, for instance. Just because you personally are not interested in a topic doesn't mean that the topic is not of use to anyone at all. And, the reason that the list is not extensive should be obvious -- the community has not had a chance to add to it yet. -- Jamiem
The number of black metal fanzines is small (and anyway I'd burn that as cruft) but the notable small venues can be collected in a category, whihc will allow subcategories by region and so on. As a list it has two major problems: spamming with non-notable venues, and the absolutely vast number of potential includees. Go with a category, they work wel for this kind of thing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. If this ends up being deleted, I may create a category, or better yet, write a new article about the all-ages punk rock phenomenon in the US. Without this informal network of show spaces, many bands and other performers would not be as well known as they are. IMHO it's worthy of an article. -- Jamiem


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piccolo Mouso

edit

Non-notable demo. --Vossanova 19:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, copyvio. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)'[reply]

Jennifer Kraus

edit

Vanity, not notable San Saba 19:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a copyvio from http://www.newschannel5.com/content/bios/1733.asp, I've removed it. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Chronicles

edit

Fails any sort of WP:WEB guidline, even fails the defunct WP:COMIC (eric burns) guidelines. Has no alexa rank, no assertion of notability and just over 30 forum members. There are myspace profiles more notable than his. - Hahnchen 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Laidlow

edit

Article was tagged with {{db-bio}}, but this has been contested so the article no longer qualifies for speedy deletion under criteria A7. A search of IMDB finds no one by this name, the movie this individual is supposed to have starred in is not listed, and a movie with a very similar name produced three years earlier does not list this individual in the credits. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of this article. --Allen3 talk 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
 This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Nicholas E. Radice IV. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Morris

edit

Non-notable former radio announcer. One sentence article. Google for "Guy Morris" "Trent FM" gives 38 non-Wikipedia hits. Google for "Guy Morris" "MLS Audio" gives 4 non-Wikipedia hits. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article just needs expansion. When making an attempt to verify notability, I highly recommend actually reading some of the websites rather than simply counting them. This DJ has some significant history in the UK starting in 1975 at Trent FM and then moving to the original lineup of Leicester Sound (also run by Trent FM) as their first morning show host. [38]. His picture is displayed on UK Radio: A Brief History - Part 3 and captioned as a popular presenter (DJ). Again, it only took a few minutes of searching and reading to come up with this information. Randomgenius 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Please assume good faith. I did indeed visit the websites you mention before nominating this substub for deletion. The fact remains that Mr Morris simply isn't notable. He may have worked at Trent and Leicester Sound (along with hundreds of other people) but there dozens and dozen of people more notable than him in ILR that we don't have articles on. He may be mentioned on certain fansites for Trent and LS, but that still doesn't change his fundamental lack of notability. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand the assume good faith policy, but my experience with afd, good faith, and radio (internet or otherwise) topics here at wikipedia is that these articles are submitted for afd almost as automatically as a bot sorting their categories. Guy Morris didn't just work at Leicester Sound, he was the morning DJ on their first air staff. All the information I read points to him being a historic figure in radio for this region. I still say the article needs expansion rather than deletion. Maybe there are dozens of people more notable than him that don't have articles. I'd say that's irrelevant to this discussion. To me this just means somebody should write or request those articles not that other articles should be deleted. Surely wikipedia doesn't delete articles simply because more notable articles don't exist yet. Randomgenius 22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to 96 Trent FM, without prejudice to someone creating an article with more than one line on him. Stifle 12:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Ratón

edit

Delete this teensy stub has not been expanded since August and only says Super Ratón is a popular wrestler from Mexico. Does that mean he's popular with the ladies, wrestling fans, restaurants, or what? Ruby 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Result : Speedy delete as a nn-band JoJan 14:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(216)

edit

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Google search got no results. Esprit15d 20:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chainz

edit

delete advertising. Melaen 20:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcheshmeh

edit

delete, looks like original research. Melaen 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy - nn-bio. -- RHaworth 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Gosse

edit

{{{Delete}}} San Saba 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Clearly garbage (aka: patent nonsense). — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. Fortiori

edit

Per the article this is a "minor character." Doesn't really need a whole article. At best, merge with Catch-22 Esprit15d 20:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby and the Dykes

edit

Delete This band (if it existed) had no recordings, but is not speedily deletable because it asserts notoriety (and yes it is funny that I am nominating it, now that you mention it.) Ruby 20:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rezzed out, Rez life

edit

DeleteWikipedia is not a slang guide. Bill 20:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian New Media Forum

edit

Conference Notes, smells of copyvio MNewnham 20:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice E. Altoon

edit

Is simply being a county judge enough to get in wikipedia? Doesn't seem notable enough. Esprit15d 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ClickDiario.com

edit

delete, advertising. Melaen 20:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November, 2006

edit

I believe pages like this shouldn't be created this far in advance, they'll eventually get created from the 'in the news' sections (see December 2005). Plus the title is malformed (I'd just redirect if the target page should be in existence). - Bobet 20:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Managing Softly

edit

Delete not notable enough to have its own page San Saba 20:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TzHaar Fight Cave

edit 
Keep it i need this page

delete RuneScape location , unencyclopedic. Melaen 20:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tarikochi 05:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - I do not think it should be deleted or even be considered for deletion at all. This is a major part of RuneScape, and considered one of the highest honours to complete, giving a necessary reason to keep the article.[reply]

Keep The only other thing you can do with this article is to merge it with RuneScape Locations and that would be very very very messy. J.J.Sagnella 07:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted because there is no reason for it to be.You may think that it is unencyclopedic, but the people who actually like to play RuneScape and go and fight these things may need advice or tips on how to beat them,etc.

Tarikochi 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC) - I would also like to add that the "TzHaar Fight Cave" is not a location, despite its name. The "Fight Cave" is actually a RuneScape mini-game, furthering the reason why this article should not be deleted.[reply]

May be better to seek consensus on A larger list of AFD instead of just this one.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of drum & bass on-line purchasing sites

edit


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

The result of the debate was redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fallstaff

edit

Delete. This is a non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Zero Google hits for this musical group -- Lockley 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the delete a redirect to Falstaff is a good idea. Sliggy 13:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect; please don't use AfD for this. Johnleemk | Talk 14:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Chetwynde

edit

Non notable character. Should be merged with the article on the series. Esprit15d 20:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete as hoax. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Carter

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Drake

edit

Delete no content, not notable enough for Wikipedia San Saba 20:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cakes Made by M.E.

edit

Delete. Non-notable company. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Mitchell

edit

Not notable enough for wikipedia. Esprit15d 21:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was just redirect the damn thing; anyone who knows better can merge from the history. Johnleemk | Talk 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dudi Jat

edit

Reason Barely legible, and seems non-notable. Esprit15d 21:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fightdemback.com

edit

delete group of 30 people, advertising. Melaen 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete The original article was intended as a harrasment piece against FDB. with the defamation removed (almost the entire article) , there really isnt much information at all duckmonster 5:41, 1 Feb 2006 (GMT + 8)

keep the article is probably worth keeping but should be titled FightDemBack! instead of Fightdemback.com. Defamation removed, added detail, wikified. Darrin Hodges 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- Could folks please identify when voting to keep out sock puppets. That said, if the article can be fleshed out with non defamatory stuff, that isnt also cheerleading, Im happy to withdraw my delete duckmonster 4:12, 1 Feb 2006 (GMT + 8)

OK, added my ID to my previous 'keep' vote. Darrin Hodges 00:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Chao

edit

Non notable. Esprit15d 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DominateGame

edit

delete non notable freeware game. Melaen 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Photos

edit

Reads like Spam or advert, maybe a redirect to Yahoo, or Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Charlesingalls759 21:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to Yahoo! StarryEyes 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without redirect. First of all, let's be fair: we have an article that covers "Google Images", "Google Groups", "Google Froogle" and others (List of Google services and tools). So I'm not advocating to retain Google and remove Yahoo. I'm against *all* articles of this kind, not for their commercial/advertisement aspect, but simply because they are a maintenance pain. Nobody can keep up with each and every feature/service a web site decide to provide; so, unless we have historical info, commercial facts or even undocumented things that can interest/be useful to the user (such as Gpuzzle or April Fools Search), all that such articles supply is info which are either found on the original site itself (so why replicating them here?) or info that are outdated (which will always happen soon or later). Thus I think that when possible we should ascribe them to a proper context-article, where they can be indicated to the user as external links. Or in other cases simply cited in the main article as "some additional services". As a rule of thumb: avoid info and details that easily become outdated. --Gennaro Prota 00:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect. I don't see what the harm in keeping the redirect is; should the technology become outdated, if people happen to still remember it and type it into the box, it redirects to Yahoo. No harm done. Incidentally, Yahoo Photos has remained unchanged for the past five or so years. Raggaga 00:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Yahoo!. Redirects are cheap. Stifle 15:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emucation

edit

delete un notable site. Melaen 21:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bellandi Signs

edit

Corporate spamicruft MNewnham 21:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, it is obvious to me that the article is a joke. Thue | talk 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Panchyson

edit

Delete 3 Google hits. none of them verify the info in the article Bill 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polymorphalenecitrate

edit

Hoax that conceived as an ad [39]. Or vice versa. - Liberatore(T) 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electonehk

edit

Non-notable web forum, according to the article has "100+ members and 500+ messages". - Bobet 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empirically quantifiable handsomeness

edit

Delete unverifiable. Possible hoax. Bill 21:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben_Kelso_Jr.

edit

Is this guy notable? My dad is as notable as him. (Opes 21:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inteenz Christian Magazine

edit

Non-notable Web magazine. 3Ghits.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_Petros_Religion

edit

The page appears to be a complete hoax/vanity page for this guy Petros. -- Saaber 17:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Britpop musicians

edit

Britpop as a genre is very hard to define, and I could make a strong case for the removal of many of those listed. No doubt, someone else would make a strong case for the reinstatement of a few names that I have just removed. The list is out of date, inaccurate and unloved, and doesn't offer any great improvement over a category. A Strong Delete from me. kingboyk 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying the list needs clean-up, but we have lists of musicians for most other genres (Just look at Category:Lists of musicians) and Britpop should be no different. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 09:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Have to agree with kingboyk; this is much better served by a category. (I do consider Carter USM Britpop, however. Just listen to the song "World Without Dave". But what do I know? I'm just an ignorant Yank.) StarryEyes 23:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd fight an armed duel to defend my notion that Carter are not Britpop, but I can't prove it. Which kind of makes my point :) Thanks for the support, and if you haven't already check out 101 Damnations and 30 Something. --kingboyk 00:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like this type of list as it complements our coverage. Needs short descriptions. -- JJay 00:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Britpop is too hard to define, and it would be more economical just to add a similar list to the actual page for the genre. --tksteph
  • Keep. Seems reasonable to me. The great advantages of lists over categories is that you see the redlinks to see what needs to be created. Capitalistroadster 02:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's category material at best. Appears to also be a list that is unlikely to ever be completed, and badly defined to boot. Stifle 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately this page typifies all the problems we're having with the main Britpop page - People hear the word once or twice and decide they know what it means, then argue about it forever. It would be a nice idea if people didn't keep coming along and adding bands to it, unfortunately this is what is happening and will continue to happen. With the category it is redundant anyway. --Sachabrunel 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if it survives this vote then I vote it get another serious trimming - 50% cut or more. --Sachabrunel 20:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice that I've trimmed a lot away already. I've also changed the definition of what is acceptable there by restricting it to British, first-wave britpop bands - otherwise it's just unmanageable. Feel free to trim away further. I'm still strongly in favour of deletion though for the reasons you've just put so eloquently. (PS Adding your vote isn't really a minor edit :)) --kingboyk 20:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The list is manageable, you just need a few editors working together towards consensus. This isn't out of control like the Best-selling artists/albums articles. You can refer to other online resources like Allmusic, NME, etc. for some pointers. These suggestions also apply to Category:Britpop --Madchester 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is, the two editors who have been cleaning it (myself and User:Sachabrunel) both agree it should be deleted. I personally won't be sticking around once this debate is over, so that leaves one.
Your other point (I got an edit conflict as you were adding it) - I read NME every week in that era so I have a fairly good idea already; that's not the problem. It's the maintenance and usefulness which is the problem. Keeping that list sane is a lifetime's commitment! :) --kingboyk 20:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted by Mailer diablo, who probably forgot to close this. Johnleemk | Talk 14:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlem

edit

Delete. Apparently a slang term (a portmanteau of Scarborough and Harlem). Already has a Wiktionary entry. Wikipedia is not a slang or usage guide. Not notable enough to merit its own article, and subject not substantial enough to ever be more than a stub. Mostly a vanity page for scarlem.net. Skeezix1000 22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the vanity page of the photographer behind scarlem.net was previously deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christophe Richardson). Skeezix1000 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prostie Dvizheniya

edit

Non-notable song (which even the article describes as only "quite interesting". Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master volume controls

edit


I'd be happy to "clean it up". 204.86.231.10 23:28, 26 January 2006 Drbob1a(UTC)

  • Edited I have now edited the article to remove the second person pronoun, and to tighten up the language. I'm not sure what you mean about "Wikipedia is not a how-to"? Please check the edited version and see if it meets your standards. Drbob1a
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 22:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFIF

edit

as it currently stands, this is a single link to a page about the development page of a format which doesn't appear to actually have been used in the software it was to have been proposed for. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this article lacks verifiability) Mozzerati 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. None of the keep opinions have provided any policy based argument for keeping the article. Davewild (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Mason

edit
Craig Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsuccessful candidate in an election. I looked on his campaign Website for any other claims he might have to notability--came up with zippo. Blueboy96 14:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second vote by this IP Fritzpoll (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 04:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey punch

edit

A made-up sex move which has, apparently, never been recorded. Cited authorities include Urban Dictionary (so it must be true, then). Most discussions in anything even approaching a reliable source seem to restrict themselves to saying it's unlikely. The article as written seems to be little more than an excuse to link to articles like dildo - I don't think even Roger's Profanisaurus would include this. I reckon it's complete bollocks from start to finish, although it got kept here. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   22:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for the implied causality. I meant that despite having a lack of verified sources, we should still keep it. Much bigger and more important articles are unverified as well, which in my mind is a good precedent for allowing common knowledge without verification to remain in the encyclopedia. - CorbinSimpson 16:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the act itself may be fictitious, this term has been in usage for quite a while. As part of the common vernacular, I'd say that it deserves a place in Wikipedia. — [anonymous] 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Qualified Keep If it doesn't get cleaned up and the profanity and rampant misogyny (of the article, the concept of the act itself seems hopelessly woman-hostile), it should be deleted. If it's maintained better, well...keep it. At the moment, it's nonsense, but the term is one people refer to and wonder about, and if we can get this anecdotal, ridiculous tone out of the article (the quotes at the beginning, the warning about possible castration), it's worthwhile. Ugh. --4.235.135.81 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been around for a year and a half. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   10:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is not very informative, and contains dubious information. Wikipedia is not a place for some boys to spread their street vernacular. Lengis 16:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though this act may be immoral to some, the fact of the matter is that this article provides a good definition for this slang phrase. Wikipedia is not a moral stomping grounds, it is a forum for the conveyance of useful information. This is useful information. What if a parent's kid asks them what it is because they heard some kids at school say it. Definitely keep this.... Anonymous 21:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete: CSD G7: sole contributor requested deletion - page created in error. Thryduulf 22:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Octavie E. Butler

edit

Delete - Mistakenly created thinking I had typed in "Octavia", when I'd actually typed in "Octavie" Mwelch 22:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus Distribution

edit

This is a very short stub that gives no explanation why this company is any different to the multitude of others in its field. All three inbound links were added by two anon users with IP addresses in the same range. It feels like advertising to me. Thryduulf 22:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I followed the links and confirmed that is in the top 100 logistics firms in the US according to one website. (This list did not include some notable trucking firms, though Nexus is broadly trucking and warehouse operations.) So, since logistics is a relatively small industry, this probably make Nexus not in the top 5000 firms in the US. Guide lines on firms are not that clear, but this one overall seems non notable. Wouls be pleased to change my vote if there was verifiable evidence of notability provided.Obina 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Obina. Stifle 16:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Sanctum

edit

Non-notable website. Spam. Ezeu 22:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creator of Seventh Sanctum here - the profile was created (not at my behest) by one of the site's regulars. I do feel the initial creator included too much extraneous materials. I have edited it to a more reasonable size. I must Abstain due to my involvement.XWayfarer 10:23, 26 January 2006 (EST).

  • I will have to Abstain here since I count XWayfarer as a personal friend. However, I would question the nom's judgement that the site is non-notable; while "Seventh Sanctum" gets 18,800 Google hits, slightly on the low side, looking at how those hits refer to Seventh Sanctum shows that people are recommending it as a valuable resource; people are calling "the best source on the Internet"[41] and "the current champ"[42]. Here you have a college's English department putting the site on a list of resources it recommends to its students, andthese people are using the site's generators in making their independent film series. Again, I have to abstain, but I hope people will consider these factors before making a judgement about the site's notability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - alexa ranking of 113,599, and the forum only has 117 members. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this should be on their website, not on the Wikipedia. Stifle 09:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep noted as a useful reference in the article "Master the name game" by Arthur Plotnik published in The Writer Magazine, Dec. 2005 issue. Crypticfirefly 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Merely because a website is recommended by someone somewhere does not make it notable. At least not by Wikipedia standards.--Ezeu 09:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
I am relisting this because it is right on the border for consensus to delete. For something this close, I'd like to get more votes. Deathphoenix 22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete KI 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep because I have heard of the site before, and some of my RPG friends have actually used it. It's not exactly world-famous, but think it is somewhat notable within the subculture. The article needs some cleanup though. Draeco 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When in doubt, keep -- Simon Cursitor 08:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to point out that an article on Seventh Sanctum was created previous to this, and although it was deleted, the deleting admin didn't offer any reason why it was deleted, only "listed for speedy deletion"[43], which rather suggests that it didn't actually meet any criteria for speedy deletion and shouldn't have been. If looking at the deleted version showed that it was created by the same user, that doesn't indicate much, but if the current article actually represents the second independent user to think Wikipedia should have an article on the subject, that should be factored in. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pteronophobia

edit

delete minor "phobia" 500 google hits. Melaen 22:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Drini as a nn-bio (csd a7). - Bobet 13:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Echlin

edit

Textbook Non-notable person page - would probably be a candidate for speedy deletion -- Aim Here 22:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plans and apologies

edit

Was tagged as a speedy by Stifle, but asserts an album release, which is a claim of notability. Neutral. —Cryptic (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonnotable. KI 23:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless I am mistaken it is an EP (Extended play) and an album. Regardless of whether it is an album or an EP, I don't think that it meets the criteria WP:MUSIC, because it has not entered the Top 40 or meets any other criteria. Dr Debug (Talk) 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although quite a few relevant Google results for "Plans and Apologies" (including quotes), it's still less than 1000 and hence not enough. They're much further along than most of the bands that show up on AfD, if that's any consolation. StarryEyes 23:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was updated since I tagged it, and I agree it's no longer a speedy. However it is still a delete. It does not have the two album releases on major labels required, and while the author claims it meets the criterion of having been prominently featured in a major music publication (my emphasis) (see here), I do not see this as either prominent or major. Additionally, the band members' names on the article do not correspond with the names on the website. Stifle 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the original poster of the article. I would agree that the band are just emerging into 'wikipedia' status so to speak, and are on the border between being notable enough, and not quite. I felt they had a large enough fan base, radio play, and publication reviews to warrant a placing. On reading through the WP:MUSIC criteria, it would seem that 'spot' (ie. one-off) radio plays are not enough. However, the support of Drowned in Sound, I thought, was enough. Perhaps the Wikipedia article on Drowned In Sound could be updated a little. It has continued to grow over the last year, and is now Europe's most widely read music website. It has more readers per week than the NME for instance, and is perhaps the most significant 'tastemaker' within the UK indie community. (I don't think I should be the one to update the entry for it though, as it could look like I was trying to manipulate things in favour of the plans and apologies entry!). I would argue then, that it is both prominent and major for an indie band. No hard feelings if you disagree and delete the entry though, it is reassuring to see that Wikipedia has such stringent entry conditions. PS - confusingly, the band members change their alternative names every year or so, so there are several versions out there! If I knew their actual names, I'd have gone with that... Gus Peterson 11:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you mention NME, can I ask - have you/they been featured in NME yet? If they have, in what context? Unless NME have gone seriously down hill I'd be surprised if they'd overlooked a notable British indie band. --kingboyk 08:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They haven't been featured in the NME (as far as I know). Would probably be on their press sources on their site if they had, but no mention of the NME. That may change in upcoming weeks with a new single out in March, but for the moment, no NME. Gus Peterson 15:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying an article in NME is essential of course, but it's a reasonable indicator along with what else is written here that this band aren't quite notable enough yet. Perhaps you should save a copy of the article to your user space and resubmit it in a few months time if they've made a bit more of an impact? --kingboyk 21:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats no problems, will see how things turn out over next few months, and in the meantime, a delete if thats the right way to go. There are some other bands I was meaning to submit (with a higher profile than Plans and Apologies - should have done them first really!), but will see who things turn out with them in terms of the needed profile for Wikipedia. Gus Peterson 00:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 13:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams' First State of the Union Address

edit

Uncle G and Howcheng insist this is original research (see: Wikipedia:No original research). If that's the case, then according to their logic, this should be deleted. KI 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fail to see the point why this qualifies as original research. It is an important and historic speech and we know it exists. It has an encyclopedic value etc. etc. Dr Debug (Talk) 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceVilla

edit

Pure advertisment on non-notable website. No Alexa ranking status. Hurricane111 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete-Advertising.--Pomegranite 23:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delete per nom. Rory096 23:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 04:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LifeStyles

edit

proxy nomination for User:Chooserr - has attempted speedy 3 times, being reverted. Also working on teaching him how to nominate - NO VOTEHipocrite - «Talk» 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]



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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honey (model)

edit

I'm doubtful of her notability and suspect this is either promotional or a hoax, especially since the user who first created the article just happened to be named Honey101. I found no relevant Google results for 'Honey model', the "official website" link at the bottom points to http://www.com, and there's no assertion of her notability anywhere in the article. They include a Victoria's Secret catalogue cover shot, but it cannot be her, given that that was a Fall 2002 issue and she was just twelve when it came out. They do not say anywhere in the article what work she's done. StarryEyes 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 04:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music

edit

This is already linked in the relevant articles and does not warrent it's own. Alexa 300,000+ ∴ here…♠ 23:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

obviously i was wrong. feel free to close unanimous keep. i agree -- i expect people to know it, probably some repressed shame from ishkur's pictures of my raver days. keep it up. ∴ here…♠ 04:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FindAdBlue.com

edit

Was tagged for speedy for no content, but it has content so it doesn't qualify. Looks like spam instead so Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable website,. —This user has left wikipedia 01:32 2006-02-02
  • Delete advert Stifle 16:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Probably advert (see the relevant section of WP:BALLS), but for the time being I'm going for WP:WEB. Stifle 23:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not an advert. A website and free service enabling people to find a technology to improve the environment Howardcardinal 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is not spam. This is ridiculous - a major contribution to improving the environment - and someone wants to delete this contribution what is going on. Wo decided that they should delete this article - someone in the US - trying to stop Europe cleaning up the roads from Nox pollution. Does anyone in Wikepedia understand how important improving the environment is? You have to know that Adblue, and the need for it to work - and for truckers to use SCR technology - means that they need the European Findadblue website. This is not spam.

. User:[email protected]

  • Keep - it is not spam. I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia. I don't understand all the acronyms and terminology so please let me know what's wrong with my page. User:Howardcardinal
Just to cleaify Howardcardinal, it not your page. 2nd you dont have to put 3 "keeps" into this page (I belive [email protected] and Howardcardinal is the same person) Twthmoses 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik F. Øverland

edit

Impressive CV and advert for SUBITO! Research&Futures, Norway. But is this guy notable? -- RHaworth 23:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a joke article. Thue | talk 18:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9000

edit

Nonsense article about a nn number. Draeco 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyAFL

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antiforbidden fruit effect

edit

I'm not sure this term actually exists. I can't verify it anywhere, and it's had the "unsourced" tag for over 4 months. Joyous | Talk 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned Forever

edit

nn documentary from a nn site (though it's pretty neat, Jersey REPRESENT!). Can't really find anything about either except self reference. Site fails WP:WEB. RasputinAXP talk contribs 23:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 12:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Installation Services (RIS)

edit

Delete - Verbatim copy from http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/deploy/depopt/remoteos.mspx Gennaro Prota 23:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a clarification: I'll likely recreate the article myself. I'm just asking to remove the current contents because we have a copyright infringement. Normally we cope with this by creating a new version, but since the article has no previous edit history I propose to delete and recreate it. --Gennaro Prota 13:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. If we'd caught this earlier it would be a CSD A8 speedy. Thryduulf


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 speedied it earlier for it was at CAT:CSD and the afd notice was missing). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eswarappa

edit

This isn't up to the standards of wikipedia and should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chooserr (talk • contribs) 23:45, 1 February 2006

(It seems to be a joke article)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 07:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lambert

edit

Non-notable/vanity page -- Aim Here 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_1&oldid=1234127510"