Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 13

Purge server cache

February 14[edit]

 

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:44, 19 February 2006

List of born-again Christian laypeople[edit]

As discussed in here, "laypeople" is fuzzy and useless, and "born-again" is either useless, or includes only those Christians who we can verify actually said "I am born-again" — leaving us with a very small or empty list. But is it even worth making this distinction?

I have been trying to get the list merged, but since we can't agree on where to merge it to, we should simply delete it. Any important people should already be in a list by denomination. ··gracefool |☺ 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I agreed with delete, "support" might look confusing here) "Born-again" is kind of becoming a catch phrase term that's perhaps not very meaningful and difficult to pin down. The Barna Poll people do try by defining born-agains as "people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior."[1] It'd be difficult to verify who believes all those things and also that definition is kind of vague. Plus this term can be contentious because of confusion.--T. Anthony 06:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a thought. When I go to wikipedia, I am looking for an overview first (what the *#$& is this term?) then I can always delve deeper using the extra links. A list of people who have actually referred to themselves as "born again" is simply useless - EVEN to born-again Christians since no one can really know if they ARE born-again or just claiming to be. I'd just like a list of Christians first (by some guideline... protestant?) then leave the subtleties for further study. This whole argument has devolved into "he's not REALLY a TRUE CHRISTIAN (tm)". I'd ask "Who is?" Using "born-again" as a category is just biased. Alice Cooper is a self-professed Christian at age 58 and has said as much in 2006 on his radio show which airs all over the place. Easily verifiable and yet.... did he say "I am a BORN-AGAIN (tm) Christian"? No. Yet, if asked, he'd say he gave his life to Jesus, repented, baptised, etc.

An encyclopedia cannot (and should not) hold Ph.D.-level data. It is for the LAY PEOPLE to get a basic grip on a term. If they need more, there's a lifetime of study available on the web now. Just my 2 cents. Tim Simmons 2006/02/13

  • Delete Nonsense list of people. Maustrauser 13:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Isotope23 14:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find problematic the notion that we should delete all Ph.D.-level data in favor of lay people. An encyclopedia should clearly strive to be understandable to lay people but not at the cost of providing encyclopedia content. Isn't there a simple english wikipedia for this? Savidan 15:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a religion related list. Therefore lay people means the "laity" i.e. people who are not ordained. PhD or no PhD is not really the issue. People on this list may or may not have a PhD, it makes no difference.--T. Anthony 18:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. FWIW, I had always understood "lay people" as meaning "people other than clergy". Savidan's comment above indicates that he/she is using a different definition. A clear demonstration of the fuzziness of the term. Ergot 17:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List is effectively meaningless. Mattley (Chattley) 20:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strange, ill-defined and somewhat pointless list. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as badly-defined, permanently incomplete list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Might as well have a "List of Christian people". Grandmasterka 02:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless list. Elizabeth 06:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 07:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 15:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 19:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do we want wikipedia to have an article of many thousand names. This is not a finite article, nor can it be. The list could become longer than a telephone directory. Rhyddfrydol 23:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.SoothingR 10:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formulating knowledge for learning[edit]

Looks like an ad for a website. I don't think the title makes for a potentially useful article, especially given the number of other articles on learning. ··gracefool |☺ 04:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 2.5 years ago with a time machine... or in 5 days, whichever is more convenient. Melchoir 05:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam. Phrase gets tons of Google hits... all spam. --Allen 05:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam. --Terence Ong 06:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant spam. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, blatant spam. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's certainly an ad. Paul Carpenter 21:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without the external link, the article reads like original research. Following the link makes a clear case for deleting for advertising. (No way to redeem the article.) —ERcheck @ 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam, non article, and so forth. --Jay(Reply) 00:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not an ad, but it's a stub that points people to a website with original research Ruby 00:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created by someone who significantly expanded SuperMemo article. Promotion. Pavel Vozenilek 19:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily redirected to Jesus-Myth. Peyna 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ myth[edit]

Same as Jesus-Myth TaeKwonTimmy 04:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and close AfD, because article was an inappropriate POV fork. The redirect was already accomplished by the time I viewed the page. It would probably be appropriate to merge the content of this article, including the mention of the eponymous book, into Jesus#Questions of Reliability, but this was not done. Ikkyu2 04:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm changing the redirect from Jesus to Jesus-Myth since the current redirect makes no sense. Otherwise, yeah, this can be closed.--Isotope23 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:45, 19 February 2006

Elisa Eliot[edit]

Non-notable actress. Only notable film she was in, she was cut from. Delete. Makemi 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that IMDB page consists entirely of one straight to video release. Makemi 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough with the TV appearances. Grandmasterka 02:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, until her TV appearance actually show up somewhere. IMDB doesn't even register them. It seems to be written by the actress, or a grade-school age relative. Poor spelling... and 'known worldwide' for a film she wasn't even in?! --Vizcarra 17:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:46, 19 February 2006

Degree audit[edit]

Perhaps an interesting topic, but it's just copied from this source James Kendall [talk] 00:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio, and dictionary definition type article. --Jay(Reply) 01:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef that wasn't worth the bother of copying. -- Mithent 01:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn dicdef Avi 02:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. Blnguyen 03:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, copyvio. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{copyvio}}, as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  07:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Couldn't the copyright problems process take care of this? — RJH
  • No need to send it to WP:CP, just speedy delete as a copyvio. Stifle 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Stifle Ruby 01:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It has been asserted that the website it originates from is not a commercial content provider, i.e. that there is a possible chance that permission will be granted. Therefore the article has been sent to WP:CP. Stifle 11:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:46, 19 February 2006

Moonranker[edit]

Yet another advertisement, I vote Delete Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Alexa ranking for URL from main site="No rank." Alexa for .com url="no data"--Fuhghettaboutit 00:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 00:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very evident that whoever posted this wants to get a free google crawl via the Wikipedia link tree. --Jay(Reply) 01:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Advertising Garbage Avi 02:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement. Yamaguchi先生 02:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete unabaashed advertising.Blnguyen 03:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, ad. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 06:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising, nothing but.  (aeropagitica)  07:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Moonraker. JIP | Talk 15:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad. Elizabeth 06:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:47, 19 February 2006

Brawl hall[edit]

Delete nn website Aaronw 01:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The website is not listed in article. However, it appears to be this site[3] The forum there has fewer than 800 members. Alexa Rank=No data. Google returns 216 unique hits. Appears to be a patently non-notable. --Fuhghettaboutit 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. Patently non-notable; looks like it needs about a week in the sandbox and a few good references on Wikipedia before it shares space with the likes of Earth, Microsoft, or Apple pie. --Jay(Reply) 01:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website, and not a place I ever want to go. -- Mithent 01:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 02:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, fails WP:WEB. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn website. --Terence Ong 06:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable website - WP:WEB refers; POV article - WP:NPOV refers.  (aeropagitica)  07:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:47, 19 February 2006

Heynonnynonny[edit]

A non-notable website that fails WP:WEB and doesn't say why (or even whether) it is notable. Less than 200 Google hits. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 01:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Notable for what? This appears simply to be a promotion for their site. Also, it's fewer than 200 hits not less than 200 hits. --Walter Görlitz 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website; they've been skiving to write this article. -- Mithent 01:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Most likely a test article. --Jay(Reply) 01:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rediculous (non-encyclopædic) Avi 02:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn written in comic tone.Blnguyen 03:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable website, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  07:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:48, 19 February 2006

Jessica Gore[edit]

Completely non-notable musician. 105 unique hits, many of which have nothing to do with her. Delete (preferably speedily). Makemi 01:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete redirect page Jessicagore

Comment If you delete this then you should also delete Image:Jgalbumart.jpg Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - non notable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above (I saw this page and thought "related to Al Gore") -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 01:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, non-notable musician. Bad ideas 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, non-notable vanity article. --Jay(Reply) 01:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete {{db-bio}} and tagged as such Avi 02:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a speedy delete- she has recorded an album sold through Amazon [4]. Based on the non-discussion of Gore's career here I vote Keep. -- JJay 02:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even still, it doesn't meat WP:MUSIC. Delete. EdGl 03:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete notice has been removed by me. As having an album released is an assertion of notability, this is not a speedy candidate. However, I will vote to delete given that she is not on Allmusic.com and she did not Google [5] well indicating that she is not notable enough yet to meet our music notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 03:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable enough artist, and career has just started. Maybe in future, article will be needed but seems to be more of an advertisement at this time. Das Nerd 03:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn pub musician
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn musician. --Terence Ong 14:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Philharmonic Dining Rooms[edit]

Nothing seems to differentiate this from thousands of other pubs, other than art deco design, and Grade II listing (which is not uncommon, there are about half a million in England). -R. fiend 01:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, art deco listed buildings are of interest to users. Kappa 01:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. Also, according to one of the linked references John Lennon liked to drink there and the building is a "Grade I" listing, not a "Grade II". Crypticfirefly 01:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For now it is a stub, but it could be referenced as a place of interest and so forth. Definitely a keeper compared other listings. --Jay(Reply) 01:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa place of interest. Yamaguchi先生 02:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable heritage building in Liverpool by all accounts. Capitalistroadster 03:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable art deco building.--Dakota 04:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa, notable building in Liverpool. --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the article adding the information about John Lennon and the other Beatles drinking there. Capitalistroadster 05:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks to the people who worked on this. -- JJay 08:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have been making small corrections, additions, and (I hope) improvements. It was a bad start, but it's slowly getting better. Logophile 10:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 14:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I knew nothing about it, found the article here, checked it, and thought it was interesting! Nexia 19:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a business that has been open for more than a century. --Vizcarra 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:49, 19 February 2006

Tupple[edit]

A new sport that is "primarily played by the technical crew at the National Student Drama Festival in Scarbrough." Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims in the article. --Allen3 talk 01:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per assertion of non-notability in article, i.e., statement to the effect that tupple is "primarily played by our little clique." --Fuhghettaboutit 01:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fuhghettaboutit. Bad ideas 01:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. --Jay(Reply) 02:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I am not sure sheer idiocy is a speedy criterion (although it should be). Oh yeah, marital arts?! We married folk use stronger weapons than that >:) Avi 02:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nonsense.Blnguyen 03:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of verifiability and notability. Capitalistroadster 06:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up at school in one day. JIP | Talk 15:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or that might as well be. Daniel Case 17:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable 'sport', WP:V violation.  (aeropagitica)  18:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tupple was not "made up at a school in one day". It is played in a large number of UK theatre organisations. One example which is unrelated to the National Student Drama Festival is a mention on the National Association of Youth Theatre site [6] Ukpronto 18:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:50, 19 February 2006

Platform Hero[edit]

flash cartoon with no claim to notability, created by anon over a redirect to Platform hero Savidan 01:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable site. If we had an article on every site, we might as well be the world wide web. --Jay(Reply) 02:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete n Avi 02:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, fails WP:WEB --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm actually pretty familiar with this; I usually follow the Something Awful Flash Tub (where this appeared), but I don't think it's notable enough for an article. It's just part of one section of one website. Snurks T C 08:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I've watched it after someone pointed me at it, but it's not especially notable. -- Mithent 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:50, 19 February 2006

Happiness is[edit]

Personal essay/original research. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Allen3 talk 01:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 02:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Per nom. Barely on essay, from what I've been taught. --Jay(Reply) 02:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 02:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Brian Kendig 02:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.,,,,,Ariele 02:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Blnguyen 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maybe a link to the Bedford Handbook should be considered for new editors? Das Nerd 03:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hapiness is Speedy Deletion for essays... OK I know there is no such thing. Delete.--Isotope23 03:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above/nom. --lightdarkness (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and discussion. Daniel Case 17:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - article doesn't make any sense. An article on the Happiness Is... cartoons/books of the 70s might be of some note, though.Schizombie 17:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP is not a publisher of original thought.  (aeropagitica)  18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyre Forest Community Church[edit]

Unnecessary and Incorrect, see Talk Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaesthetic (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Keep: Church appears notable. Content diputes should be dealt with on talk page, not a reason to delete. Savidan 02:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. As described, there is nothing notable about an indivual church that has an internal break. I don't pretend to take a stand one way of the other on how the church formed, and its too bad the nomination cited incorrect facts because that sets a bad tone. But delete as non-notable. Thatcher131 02:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thatcher131. I don't see any claim to notability in the article. --Thunk 03:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but: what does "incorrect" mean? Neither "unnecessary" nor "incorrect" are grounds for deletion that I know of. —rodii 03:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can demonstrate context that would be notable to anyone not directly involved in this church.--Isotope23 03:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of thousands of community churches, of no more importance or uniqueness than a Wal-Mart or a gas station. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 50-year old church. Kappa 10:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is Britain, where 50-years-old is considered "new-fangled", not the US, where 50-years-old is akin to antiquity. GWO
      • 50 years old is enough to be considered an established institution in any country. Kappa 11:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense inteded against this particular church, but established is not the same thing as Notable. My church is 120 years old and it doesn't deserve an entry in an encylopedia either. Thatcher131 14:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm very sad that you won't allow wikipedia users access to information about your 120 year old church, and I think it's pretty dubious to claim to offer us the sum of human knowledge while denying us these things. I try to vote with my conscience. Kappa 18:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very sad you'd want to waste the time of WP contributors with maintaining articles about largely interchangable public buildings of little note. "Human knowledge" is not merely the sum of all data. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I care about it, it's knowledge to me. It seems like of a waste of time to destroy than to maintain. Kappa 13:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article on this church does not provide evidence of notability or significance, irrespective of the standard of this nomination. Sliggy 10:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a notable church. David | Talk 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed, church is insignificant. Anon | Anon 16:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, the church is in my area and its not a church that is widely recognised. Sovvy | Sovvy 17:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article doesn't contain an assertion of notablity for the church.  (aeropagitica)  19:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn per my own research on the church. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above. -- Kjkolb 20:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A Man in Black Mattley (Chattley) 21:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per why the hell not? Paul Carpenter 21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.SoothingR 20:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MCI Kidderminster Church[edit]

Unnecessary and Incorrect, see WFCC Talk Page

  • Strong Keep for the same reason as my vote on Wyre Forest Community Church. Savidan 02:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Thatcher131 03:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thatcher131. --Thunk 03:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can prove context that would be interesting or notable to anyone not directly involved with this church.--Isotope23 03:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of thousands of community churches, of no more importance or uniqueness than a Wal-Mart or a McDonalds. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Isotope23. Sliggy 10:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article doesn't contain an assertion of notability for the church.  (aeropagitica)  19:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is clearly non-notable. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous entry
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (Article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. Criteria A7). --Allen3 talk 02:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Strange[edit]

AFD tag added by Obaten, but not finished. Speedy Delete as nn-bio. Fightindaman 02:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.SoothingR 20:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of places inspiring definitions in The Meaning of Liff[edit]

Delete: non-encyclopedic. This is a list of towns whose names sounded funny enough to Douglas Adams and John Lloyd to inspire them to put more made-up words in their two Liff books. The article serves no purpose. Brian Kendig 02:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as lift-cruft, although I wouldn't object to a Merge to The Meaning of Liff if this was article about those places and definitions rather than a list of them. Savidan 02:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Listcruft.--Isotope23 03:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I wouldn't mind a merge as per Savidan. Lord Bob 17:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft, as above. I'm not sure a merge with the Liff articles would serve to illuminate the subjects but I am open to persuasion.  (aeropagitica)  19:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a list of interest to a very limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's mentioned in the article on The Meaning of Liff as being only a partial list. None of them have their definitions (which is only right, since that would be dubious from the copyright viewpoint) - and without them, there's simply no point. Most importantly, it doesn't even mention The Deeper Meaning of Liff 's entry on Grutness! Grutness...wha? 01:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Liff-cruft Ruby 01:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Avi 15:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Place names considered unusual. The list is non-notable alone, but at least it is manageable and objective.--Karnesky 22:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to Category. Do I mean move, or delete-then-create-a-new-category? Either way, that's what I think should happen. --Billpg 11:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Durin 14:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P0rk[edit]

Non-notable website Cnwb 02:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Has been deleted twice already. Don't know if its the same content because I don't have admin goggles but if so it should be speedied. Savidan 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete nn site--Kalsermar 02:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete very nn.Blnguyen 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable webpage and page protect if Savidan is correct.--Isotope23 03:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean: "if Savidan is correct"? There's a link right there in my post! Savidan 06:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanity, spam, trollvertisement. Delete, possibly a candidate for speedy deletion. (Not as a repost, since the deleted revisions were just nonsense/vandalism.) - Mike Rosoft 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianotechnism[edit]

First-person original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. Thatcher131 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom--Kalsermar 02:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and probably WP:NFT. It's pretty ridiculous; not even worth a BJAODN. The author of this article respects the ideals of the moderators of Wikipedia.org, yet feels that this is something that exists and deserves this space on the world wide web, so that others may become aware of its existence. If you have to justify the existence of your article... it's probably nonsense. --Kinu 03:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:NFT and WP:PN. Undergraduate this year? That's the definition of made up in school. Jaxal1 03:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you specify which of the criteria for speedy deletion that this meets? Stifle 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my ciomment below. Patent nonsense is a criteria for Speedy. Jaxal1 03:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Patent nonsense is random jumbles of characters or words, like "43lfdlladfkmb" or "ghost food jump left silly". This is nonsense, but not patent nonsense. Stifle 12:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I maintain that the second definition of nonsense applies. Those are all complete sentences, but they make no sense. Redfinition creation a new sigularity? Jaxal1 17:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Not serious, but not funny either. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 03:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity OR.Blnguyen 03:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... get a blog to spread your sillyness.--Isotope23 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete -- Wikipedia is not for things made up in the future. Night Gyr 03:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Silly joke. Chairman S. 09:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, unverifiable, possibly a troll. The author can start their own webpage if they feel that this philosophy requires an entry on the Internet.  (aeropagitica)  19:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for speedy deletion, an article must meet very specific criteria. Even if it against policy, like "no original research", it cannot be speedily deleted otherwise. -- Kjkolb 20:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Patent Nonsense is criteria for Speedy. Jaxal1 22:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think that since speedy deletion is actually a separate (and mutually exclusive) process from AfD, a vote for "speedy delete" in an AfD is understood to mean "I have no hesitation in casting my vote in this direction. People often vote "speedy keep" the same way, and they couldn't be referring to the article meeting the criteria for Speedy Keeping ... since there is no such process. =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: No. If you want to say "I have no hesitation...", it's "Strong delete". And there are criteria for speedy keeping :) Stifle 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Stifle is correct. Also, articles are routinely speedy deleted when they are on AfD based upon votes for speedy deletion, so the process is not completely separate. -- Kjkolb 03:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete patent nonsense. Get a blog! Camillus (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice as vain completely nonsensical original research. It "could have 36 members" It "was created in spring 2006". Now, maybe it's just the blizzard clouding my mind, but I don't think spring 2006 has occured yet. Makemi 00:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Possible BJAODN, in particular the first paragraph. Stifle 00:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 01:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notable articles don't generally plead for their life in the first graf. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan sun[edit]

Delete Non-notable band. They aren't signed to any label and has not released an album. Giojume 03:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen 03:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shameless vanity. Love the intermittent but laughably POV attempts at neutral voice ("Their style is very unique and interesting"), followed shortly by "We are...", "our." --Fuhghettaboutit 03:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 03:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, fails WP:MUSIC --lightdarkness (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This non-notable band qualifies for a {{band}} tag; WP:BAND refers - albums, singles, notable members.  (aeropagitica)  19:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Cnwb 22:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy and Mandy The TV Movie[edit]

Delete. The article has been created by a series of suspiciously similar authors, including "EDDY" and "EDDY AGAIN". The information is presented without anything in the way of sources, and includes such ridiculous sections as "Possible Quotes". Lucky number 49 03:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Once (if) it is released, it may merit an article. --Thunk 03:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Fuhghettaboutit 03:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Blnguyen 05:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — This page needs serious cleanup even if it is kept. — RJH 16:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a load of crap. Plus it pisses me off. EDIT: Can I just delete it right now?
  • Delete What is this? Seriously, someone tell me...it's a bunch of crap. 68.192.117.112 23:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speculative in the extreme. I hope they find a better name than Grim, Billy, Mandy & the others vs. the Villians! -- Mithent 01:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, It's stupid and it's got to fake. --Caldorwards4 05:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy if Possible Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25) 00:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - THIS HAS TO BE A FAKE! There are too many characters & too convoluted a plotline for this to ever be an actual episode. First of all, if there are more than 8 villans and 8 heroes it's TOO busy. And the "supposed" plotline is actually (at least) 6 plotlines in one story. This sounds more like the mixed-up summary for an entire season rather than one episode. There's no way any writer could pull this off unless they're trying for a VERY LAME episode


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gahmen[edit]

Unverified, probable hoax, not even that funny Savidan 03:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Jaxal1 03:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No information can be found on google. Boring, unfunny hoax. --Fuhghettaboutit 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mr. Vernon 03:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax.--Isotope23 04:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Blnguyen 05:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. --Terence Ong 14:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete {{hoax}}, no citations or references and I doubt that there ever would be, either.  (aeropagitica)  19:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - ulayiti (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire_Millen[edit]

We already have an article on Matt Millen. This information should be placed in a section in Matt Millen's article, which I did at first, but it was reverted. Why we don't want readers to read all about Millen on just one page is beyond me. This isn't a big enough "cultural phenomenon" to be listed on one page, in my opinion. Aplomado 03:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup; if not that, then merge and redirect. However, I feel that the subject is sufficiently notable and became a large part of pop culture vernacular in late 2005. -- Andy Saunders 03:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why not just include a section on it in "Matt Millen"? Aplomado 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because when someone searches for Fire Millen, they won't find the information in Matt Millen if the article's deleted (hence my "merge and redirect if not keep"). --Andy Saunders 03:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting is fine by me. Aplomado 03:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as a pissed off Lions fan for more years than I can count, I can understand why this article exists, but it's not of any great cultural significance to anyone other than Lions fans in Detroit. Merge it to Matt Millen and slap anyone who tries to revert.--Isotope23 03:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Matt Millen. I suppose some people might be puzzled about seeing signs about a football executive at a basketball or hockey game and look up the slogan itself. --Metropolitan90 04:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Or, merge and redirect. -Ikkyu2 07:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)) I ran across this article a couple of months ago, was poised to AfD it, then read the article and the Matt Millen article and came to think otherwise. The slogan itself is notable because of all the darn signs on TV. Ikkyu2 04:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, be that as it may, why not just include it in a section on Matt Millen? In its current state, people who want to read about Matt Millen must read his bio and then go to "Fire Millen" to get the whole story. Wouldn't it be more efficient to simply merge the two? These two subjects are so closely connected that it's senseless to separate them. Aplomado 05:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for repeating myself. I'll shut the hell up now. Aplomado 07:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reading on Wikipedia:Redirects that if someone else feels like a redirect is useful, it's probably useful. Therefore, I'm going to add "or merge and redirect" to my vote, because I don't particularly feel like that'd be a bad idea. I have noticed, however, that quite often when AfD consensus is 'merge and redirect', what ends up happening is a redirect with no merge. Ikkyu2 07:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of merging if it is redirected. Aplomado 08:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aplomando already had a pretty good merge that got reverted.--Isotope23 14:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect, appears to be of signficance to Lions fans in Detroit. Kappa 10:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The movement to fire Matt Millen is of enough current significance to warrant a seperate page. In the future, however, I would suggest a Merge and Redirect. JKBrooks85 13:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's even of current significance... Since they hired Marinelli as Head Coach and he brought in Mike Martz as the offensive coordinator you don't hear anything in Detroit about firing Millen, even on sport talk radio stations. Lions fans are a fickle bunch. If the Lions make the playoff's this year people will be calling for a statue of Millen to be erected. If they go less than 8-8, they will be dusting off their "Fire Millen" signs again.--Isotope23 14:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but until they get that 9-7 record to take the pressure off of Millen, there will be a movement against him. It's as much a current events article as any other, and until something happens to change the situation, I'd say to Keep it. JKBrooks85 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Matt Millen. No more notable than any other fan campaign to fire an unpopular general manager or head coach. Fans have wanted to can the leaders of their sports teams since the beginning of sport, and the Lions are no more special than the Oilers or the 49ers or any other major team. Lord Bob 17:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Matt Millen as per Bob. Ziggurat 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Metropolitan90. Steve Casburn 04:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 due to no need for AfD nomination. Nominator can get an admin such as myself to delete the page and then move. Capitalistroadster 06:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Six Nations Championship[edit]

The article Rugby Union Six Nations Championship has an overlong name for no reason. AFAIK there is no other competition called Six Nations Championship. In order to move the former article to the latter title I need to have this redirect page deleted GordyB 03:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm pretty sure that you don't need to go through AFD for this. You want Wikipedia:Requested moves. However, I don't think we should move this if the article is under the official name of the competition. Night Gyr 03:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. I added the request as per above. -Jcbarr 04:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not under the name of the competition. The competition is the Six nations championsip. God knows why the rugby union bit was added to the article name.GordyB 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no need for an AfD for this, in fact it is completely inappropriate. Redirects have their own page at RfD, but even that is not necessary for articles that go through requested moves. Suggest this discussion be closed, no action required. Andrewa 06:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel_advertising_concept[edit]

Delete. With extreme prejudice. It's a promotional brochure, not a Wikipedia article. Rufus Sarsaparilla 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Monaghan[edit]

non-notable owner of a slightly notable record label Thatcher131 03:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Maybe merge, but with so little information you might as well delete it. Definitely isn't worthy of its own article. Aplomado 03:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to say merge, but there is no content to merge. Carrot Top isn't even overly notable as a label. I would say it is less notable than several other Chicago labels that don't have articles, Thick Records or Quaterstick for instance. Label isn't nearly notable enough to confer any notability back onto the owner.--Isotope23 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Blnguyen 05:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge or delete. Stifle 00:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information Tetanus[edit]

Delete. Original research. IceKarmaॐ 04:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nonsense and non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 06:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daneil Simounds[edit]

Crap, nonsense, non-notable, hoax, vanity...etc. Batman2005 04:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete "A god among men" who "likes hockey and crocadiles"? Obviously nonsense --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Nonsense. Cnwb 05:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as above. Blnguyen 05:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: G1 and A7 as notability not asserted and patent nonsense. --Kinu 05:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Botequim[edit]

Delete Maybe this should go to Wiktionary? I'm not sure, but I don't think it needs to be its own article Aaronw 04:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I've done some research and it seems that botequims are different from both pubs or cafes and play an important part in Brazillian life [7]. Even so, I do not know a lot about the subject, so I'm not very sure --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TBC's reference and a few others on google -- Astrokey44|talk 14:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid, expandable topic on a cultural institution; if this is deletable, other similar articles like kopi tiam would also be endangered. Smerdis of Tlön 16:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we have pub, we can have similar type of establishments from each country. --Vizcarra 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power glove (band) & their Total Pwnage self-album[edit]

Non-notable band. Prod tag was removed, so it's being sent to AfD Cnwb 04:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I absolutly love this band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.205.240 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment is user's first contribution to Wikipedia, and is likely a sockpuppet of Domfeargrieve. --Kinu 05:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Total rubbish. This band is HUGE and a pioneer in a very limited genre. This is a reputable band which brings over 786 hits on Google. Domfeargrieve 05:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not too sure about this band, but it should be noted that Domfeargrieve created the article. --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is true, but shouldn't cloud your judgement over whether this band is notable or not. This is no selfish self-promotion, meerly a band that I am shocked and appauled is not yet included on wiki. Domfeargrieve 05:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn .Blnguyen 05:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, WP:VSCA. As much as I love the Power Glove... it's so bad, their album Total Pwnage (which should also be deleted) is admitted to be a self-produced demo. Googling for it yields 4 results, one of which is their MySpace page and the rest being sales pages on their own website. Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC to me. --Kinu 05:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Not a nn band. I have heard of them. They have a wide fanbase Dave 05:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above vote was added by Domfeargrieve with a false signature; check history per Cnwb's comment for details. --Kinu 05:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Domfeargrieve asserts that these comments were made in his name without his permission. --Kinu 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yep, I know this band Mikkalai 05:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above vote was added by Domfeargrieve with a false signature; check history per Cnwb's comment for details. --Kinu 05:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Domfeargrieve asserts that these comments were made in his name without his permission. --Kinu 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Indeed a well known band, Wide fanbase. Please do not make the mistake of deleting these pioneers of video game metal from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.177.35 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment is user's first contribution to Wikipedia, and is likely a sockpuppet of Domfeargrieve. --Kinu 05:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed...not for deletion Wapcaplet 05:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above vote was added by Domfeargrieve with a false signature; check history per Cnwb's comment for details. --Kinu 05:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Domfeargrieve asserts that these comments were made in his name without his permission. --Kinu 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Domfeargrieve has been fiddling with the votes, creating false users; [8], [9], [10], [11]. Cnwb 05:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Domfeargrieve asserts that these comments were made in his name without his permission. Giving the benefit of the doubt for now. --Kinu 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. This should have been a speedy db-band. The article makes no assertion of notability; metalwhore.com is not even a reputable source, let alone major music media. Melchoir 05:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. mikka (t) 05:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn band, squelch the socks, and stop striking through other users' posts. Savidan 06:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look on Domfeargrieve's Talk page, when he was accused of using sock puppets and forging other user identities to his posts, he claimed in reply that somone was using his account without permission. Since by the user's own admission these statements were not made by him, it seems perfectly reasonable to indicate that they are not real votes. Thatcher131 11:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems perfectly reasonable to me for him to strikethrough his own comments if he claims that he did not make them. However, that does not mean that you should strike through a someone else's statements as well based on something he says. Savidan 15:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out repudiated text is a service to the community that may be performed by anyone. Snottygobble 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 J. G. Thirlwell. - ulayiti (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garage Monsters[edit]

Delete. Minor side-project of J. G. Thirlwell. Relevent information has been merged into J. G. Thirlwell article. I am the original creator of the article, and the first six edits of the page are mine. Rynne 05:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not just redirect to J.G. Thirlwell, then? No need for an AfD. Ikkyu2 05:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's such an nn project that it was only crosslinked to other Thirlwell projects. (And those links were only in place because I put them there myself). I think it's so minor, in fact, that I can't imagine anyone ever using a redirect, so I figured it'd probably be more efficient to remove the page from the server altogether. Rynne 05:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirects are very, very cheap. If we're going to talk about efficiency, the server cost of all the edits involved in this AfD would probably pay for 10 million uses of a redirect. Ikkyu2 05:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are the only editor and/or creator you can also nominate yourself for a speedy delete. Thatcher131 05:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, it's been up long enough that there were other editors, though I'm responsible for almost all the actual content. Rynne 05:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or keep. Kappa 10:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to J. G. Thirlwell. Cnwb 22:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Mailer Diablo 03:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman The Fan Series[edit]

Creator keeps removing PROD tag without discussion. Page doesn't assert meeting WP:WEB, doesnt seem to have been covered by good sources. --W.marsh 05:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, hence keep. Ifnord 03:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Monotypes[edit]

An obscure band that is tired of today's bands that strive for fame and hype (article's own words). So why should they be here? On other hand, one of their songs was used in an episode of Grey's Anatomy. Would that suffice to establish notability?. Daniel Case 05:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to WP:MUSIC, "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)" is a notability criterion. They haven't had a theme song, but I'd say they're hovering just on the edge of notability. Weak delete. Snurks T C 08:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I found a review of the band here. However, a Google search on the magazine they were reviewed in puts the magazine's notability on the fence as well. I agree with Snurks that this is a tough call. But a song used as one-off incidental music in a TV show is not nearly as notable as a song used as a theme, and given the volume of band articles, taking a hard line on WP:BAND might not be a bad thing. Vslashg 10:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dilemma Recordings is independent label. They say they are obsucure they are right Defunkier 13:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have had music on major television drama series. Cnwb 22:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though they are not well known, except for an episode of Grey's Anatomy, they still deserve a page. The fact that they were on the show could make them more widely known by those who liked the song on the show. VincentGross 05:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Carruthers[edit]

unencyclopedic bio - person looks to be unpublished; is apparently without academic credentials; minus the site of his own organization (www.soulwork) a google search for his name only brings up a few hundred unique hits Mayumashu 05:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===[[Runaway train (

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 test page and patent nonsense. Capitalistroadster 07:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robbit[edit]

I'm pretty sure that this isn't information Serlin 06:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

  • I am sure that it is a useful article... a Robbit is something that many people around here have come to know and love, however need some definition explaining.... hence this article....

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.216.63 (talk • contribs)

  • as people discover what we know about this "robbit", it shall appear, however, we have put down that which we do know. Robbit never die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.216.63 (talk • contribs)


  • I was unaware of what a Robbit was until this article. I found it very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamemily (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy G2. Also, the creator's only edits have involved this article. Royal Blue 06:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 07:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nochex[edit]

Basically the article is an advertisement. Delete TheRingess 06:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, blatant advertisement. Royal Blue 06:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though I've heard of Nochex, this is clearly an advert. MLA 09:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup Nochex is a company in the mould of PayPal but this article is nothing short of advertising. It might be worth keeping if the advertising could be replaced by factual reporting or an assertion of notability. If this fails, delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Cleanup - Notable for being one of the few alternative online payment systems to to Paypal. exolon 22:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. It's useful, although it's no longer a rival to PayPal since eBay banned it. Stifle 00:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Strikers[edit]

advertisement for non-notable fancruft which has not even been produced Savidan 06:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as fancruft. Royal Blue 06:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Royboy and nom, reads like a copyvio. --lightdarkness (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a script for a yet-to-be-filmed Star Wars fan movie. Entire scripts have no place in Wikipedia at all, and articles about films yet to be filmed fail the "not a crystal ball" criterion. That's why I'm holding back the article about the film I'm in until it's actually released. JIP | Talk 15:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it's a treatment as opposed to a script, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Daniel Case 16:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP is NOT a crystal ball. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fanfilms aren't notable unless they're finished or highly anticipated. -LtNOWIS 21:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a summary of an unproduced Star Wars fan-film. It contains no claims to notability nor research value.  (aeropagitica)  21:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft.Blnguyen 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 biography. Capitalistroadster 09:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Moynihan[edit]

It's juvenile rubbish. NN and claptrap. I tried to speedy it but the editor removed the speedy deletion tag Delete Maustrauser 07:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Surprisingly entertaining, but it should be deleted as speedily as possible. bikeable (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dont delete it, everything that opinional is just amusing, the rest is FACTUAL. i dont see the basis for deletion. Imantisocial 07:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. CSD A6/A7, verging on G1. Ikkyu2 07:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Unnotable, nonsense, vanity. Weregerbil 08:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Gloss Productions[edit]

Advertisement for non notable company. Delete TheRingess 07:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 13:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious blatant advert. Stifle 00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert.Blnguyen 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crispy bangs[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. NoIdeaNick 07:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eminent people of the world[edit]

Content is repetitive with Lists of people, bad content forking. I suggest that the page be deleted and then a redirect be created. Savidan 08:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete. NatusRoma 08:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since there's no criteria for "eminent" and for the above reason. Snurks T C 08:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, impossible to populate this properly since we will never all agree on who is eminent.-Mr Adequate 08:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above MLA 10:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally subjective and given that all biographies on Wikipedia should be of notable people, any of them could belong here (even Brian Peppers). David | Talk 10:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, who is eminent is totally POV. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a WP:NPOV violation; eminent by what definition and in whose eyes?  (aeropagitica)  21:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely arbitrary. Punkmorten 21:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No good can come of a list such as this. Haikupoet 02:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV per Dustimagic Ruby 02:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - total POV.Blnguyen 03:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dbiv/David. ikkyu2 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Carlossuarez46 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Herostratus 01:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Mike & Bernie Winters. - ulayiti (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schnorbitz[edit]

Non-notable dog, followed by nice story about an unrelated even less notable dog. If article about owner created some day can be mentioned there. Weregerbil 08:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable dog owned by someone who doesn't have a wikipedia article so can't even merge. MLA 10:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete non-notable animal. Siva1979Talk to me 11:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Schnorbitz was a very familiar canine face on British TV from the 1960s to the 1980s, although I suppose it would make more sense to have a decent Bernie Winters article before even considering keeping his dog. Keresaspa 12:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as notable animal, although I would also support a merge into existing Mike & Bernie Winters article. — sjorford (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mike & Bernie Winters mentions the dog. The only additional information Schnorbitz now has is that there was an unrelated dog by the same name. If Schnorbitz is a well known name maybe redirect the dog to the duo? Now that some kind soul redirected Bernie Winters to M&BW the whole thing is coming together. Weregerbil 13:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the Harry Hill sentence to Harry Hill, and redirect to Mike & Bernie Winters -- Astrokey44|talk 15:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect as per Astrokey44. -- Mithent 18:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verbungula[edit]

Vanity article for nn language. Both links are to geocities pages Savidan 08:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep [12] 151.201.48.208 23:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [13] Young Zaphod 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: it's worth noting that Young Zaphod/151.201.48.208 appear to be the same person, and so far what he's fleshing it out with appears to be copyvio material (which I realize is pretty unavoidable with such a NN topic). Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 23:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Atari2600tim is not correct. I'm in a resource cluster, it could be any of 500 machines. Young Zaphod 00:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I guess you better get cracking and start using more of those machines as your article appear to be heading towards the garbage bin. (Not voting as I am in dispute with the same muppets on another article). Funny how single-minded those posting from college computer labs seem to be. ;-) Jlambert 14:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the talk page, the author of the page seems to be saying that he re-created it after it earlier got speedied, and that this is a second proposal to delete (and also accuses me of being a sock puppet of Savidan). Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 00:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a neat article 67.165.85.111 17:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur. This is a fine example of Wiki. 66.101.59.248 17:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn. ComputerJoe 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes
    • 151.201.48.208 is pool-151-201-48-208.pitt.east.verizon.net in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, apparently at a local university computer lab
    • 67.165.85.111 is c-67-165-85-111.hsd1.pa.comcast.net in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, likely to be his home connection
    • 66.101.59.248 is 66-101-59-248-static.dsl.oplink.net in Houston Texas (The Optimal Link[14]), and is the server that hosts his web site[15] (and needless to say, can be used as proxy).
    • Oddly enough, Young Zaphod posted within 3 minutes of the university IP, and the cable IP posted within 3 minutes of the proxy IP; currently all 4 keep votes seem to be from one person.
    • --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doing a Google search on "Verbungula" returns two hits. Doing a Google search on "Vabungula" returns 232 hits, 139 of which are from the language inventor's three websites. No evidence of notability. Steve Casburn 04:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User created Vabungula, changed this article to redirect to there, and removed the article for deletion notice to replace it with the redirect. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 23:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as original research bordering on patent nonsense. Sanction author if shenanigans continue. Ifnord 03:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NiMUD --Karnesky 18:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Capitalistroadster 09:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Woodford[edit]

Not wikipedia style, may be copyvio (even says from where the information was copied), appears to advertise some sites. I'm not sure about the notability of this person. The editors nickname ("crap11") doesn't inspire much confidence either. Nyh 08:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The show it mentions is real. If it is not a copyright violation then it should stay. Guy did have his own TV show on a major cable network. Needs to be wikified and is just a cut and paste of an obit but I would say it deserves to stay.
  • The text in the article is a word-for-word copy of [16]. Nyh 08:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks, Nyh, you made the job of adding the copyvio template much easier. Ikkyu2 09:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 censensus.SoothingR 20:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere expectation criterion[edit]

POV; original research; few Google hits Markus Schulze 09:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is problematic because of the following reasons:
  1. Original research. Few Google hits. This criterion is only known at the Election Methods mailing list.
  2. Obviously, the only thing the author of this article wants to say is that, when MinMax(pairwise opposition) is being used, then ranking an additional candidate sometimes helps but never hurts an already ranked candidate. But to say this, there is no need to invent a new criterion. You could simply say that MinMax(pairwise opposition) satisfies later-no-harm and violates later-no-help.
  3. The article is POV. The author of this article uses this criterion to argue against "Condorcet methods where the strength of pairwise defeats are assessed by the votes for the winning side". He mentions MinMax(pairwise opposition) as an example. But MinMax(pairwise opposition) isn't a Condorcet method in the proper sense because it doesn't satisfy the Condorcet criterion. When I asked the author for a concrete example of a Condorcet method that violates the sincere expectation criterion, he was unable to give such an example.
Markus Schulze 10:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of whether one believes in whether the criterion causes a differentiation between methods using margins and winning votes (see Talk:sincere expectation criterion for that discussion), this was the original intention. The discussion arguing the merits of both method types figures prominently at the Condorcet method article, under the section Defeat strength, so it's in the interest of NPOV to give and expand on the counter argument against those criteria in favor of winning votes, especially since Mike Ossipoff single-handedly created a whole bunch of them and these also have been given Wikipedia articles.
The fact that the criterion has only been mentioned on the election methods mailing list doesn't itself make it original research, but is rather a testament of the esoteric nature of the discussion. Given this, it was introduced more than 7 years ago and has since then been regularly referred to and even been generalized by others, so it can be considered to be standing the test of time. Still, if one is interested in a source besides the mailing list, see [17], where Blake Cretney gives a future-to-be informal description of the criterion:
[...]winning-votes only works by making it bad strategy to leave candidates unranked at the end of the ballot. It has no special insight into the true preferences of voters. In effect, it simply reduces the value of all incomplete ballots, in that they would on average be much better at achieving the voter's goal if completed, randomly if necessary.
-- Dissident (Talk) 16:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Blake Cretney's quotation can be summarized as follows: "MinMax(pairwise opposition) satisfies later-no-harm and violates later-no-help. Therefore, when MinMax(pairwise opposition) is being used, then it makes sense to give different rankings to the least preferred candidates even when you are indifferent between them." Blake Cretney's criticism doesn't require the introduction of a new criterion. Markus Schulze 18:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the context of the 1998 discussion between Blake Cretney and Mike Ossipoff one can deduce that the discussion was between margins and (what is now called) winning votes, since Ossipoff was first of all promoting a Condorcet method. It's true that in above linked article Blakey Cretney's phrasing has mistakenly been too strong, such that he's claiming later-no-harm plus the violation of later-no-help ("In fact, in winning-votes it is never justifiable, even for strategic reasons, to leave candidates unranked, as long as your goal is to elect the best possible candidate from your perspective."), but the sincere expectation criterion is a different criterion, as it makes a zero-info strategy claim based on expected utility. -- Dissident (Talk) 21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, IRV supporters usually argue that, when a Condorcet method is being used, then the probability that an additional ranking hurts an already ranked candidate is higher than the probability that an additional ranking helps an already ranked candidate and that, therefore, the voters will use bullet voting. It makes a big difference whether someone makes a prediction about how the voters will vote under a concrete election method or whether someone proves that a concrete election method violates a given criterion. What you call sincere expectation criterion is not more than a hypothesis about how the voters will vote under a certain family of Condorcet methods. However, it is not a criterion in the proper sense because without additional presumptions it is not possible, just by looking at the underlying algorithm, to say whether a given election method satisfies it. Markus Schulze 15:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but needs work as in above discussion Mccready 16:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The debate hinges on whether the Internet Election Mailing List is a reputable source. If it's moderated for content and has more than 5000 subscribers, it probably meets the notability guidelines; otherwise it doesn't. Does anyone know more? ikkyu2 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Election Methods mailing list is not moderated. Markus Schulze 10:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: The sincere expectation criterion was mentioned by Blake Cretney only in a single thread. And this thread is more than 7 years old [18]. Markus Schulze 13:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A4018 road[edit]

Making this nomination on behalf on 81.106.249.225. The reason given on the PROD tag is something like: "getting articles down to this level without any useful information is verging on the obsessive... - this is not a trunk route, and Wikipedia is not CBRD)". Kappa 09:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is a good stub on an A-road and this information is not something any self-respecting encyclopedia of British road transport could do without. Kappa 09:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the benefit of those not party to this particular in-joke, can you please explain why the line "The A4018 is an British A-road which runs from Bristol city centre to Cribbs Causeway via places such as Westbury-on-Trym." on a page by itself is something we cannot do without? I'd be all for keeping this as a separate article if the road actually had some shred of importance attached to it, however, it doesn't even have that (to which I can personally attest, having travelled down it several times). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.28.195 (talk • contribs)
    I believe this road has a least a shred of importance to the inhabitants of Westbury on Trym Kappa 23:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the lifts in my high-rise office building have at least a shred of importance to the thousands of people who also work there. Not only do they number more than the residents of Westbury-on-Trym (which, BTW, is hyphenated), the lifts probably carry more people than the A4018. Since we do not, and clearly should not, have an article for Ty Glas Towers lift no. 6, by logical deduction there's less reason to keep this as a separate article. Merge/redirect into a series of articles a la Roads By Ten might seem sensible, but keeping separate articles is going to lead to a serious case of stubitis - lots of stubs but no actual content. Similarly, if the best reason you can come up with for keeping it is effectively "Well, why not?", then keeping as is most definitely cannot be the answer. Of course, this may be different where you come from, but here on Earth this is certainly the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.28.195 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per Kappa MLA 10:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa Siva1979Talk to me 11:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. --Terence Ong 14:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the stub is at least fairly informative and to the point. But if this were to be deleted, anyone recreating the article could do just as well with trivial effort... and this road is clearly pretty unimportant. Mangojuice 18:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we keep american numbered roads dont we? (genuine question, not being faceatious) Jcuk 23:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mu. It's difficult to compare, due to te fact that in the UK we number roads by classification (M > A1 > A2 > B, Ax > Axx/Axxx > Axxxx) whereas in the US there are three parallel systems. There are the national networks, the US highways and Interstate highways (confusingly, neither has to cross a state boundary), of which you can't have one of each of the same number in the same state (I-5 runs along the west coast, US-5 is in New England). Then there are the state networks, some of which skip the numbers of any nationals in there (e.g. there is no CA-5, as California defines route 5 in its system to be I-5). Then some states delegate county routes, which may in some cases duplicate both national and state numbers. I think there is some effort to get down to major county roads in California, being so large and having such an extensive road network, but some of these may be more important than state-level roads in other states (maybe they have fewer roads in the state, maybe the state doesn't delegate to counties, or whatever). Being "a numbered road serving X, Y and Z" isn't much. ISTR one case surviving on merit of it being the shortest signed numbered route in the state (some are unsigned - think C-roads). Note that "worthy of record" != "worthy of own article". "worthy of record" < "worthy of section" < "worthy of article". I figure the best we could do for this would be something akin to the List of B-roads floating around, i.e. "A4018: Bristol - Westbury-on-Trym - Catbrain - Cribbs Causeway - M5". One sentence on route and name of interesting place does not make an article, and I fear there is nothing more to know about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.28.195 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as per precedent on British A-roads. I've added a tiny smidgeon more info. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The less-informed might wish to know that A-roads are like second-class degrees. They are not a single class, but two subclasses. In much the same way that you can't hold a 2:1 and a 2:2 on par (this being the effective boundary between a "good" degree and an "average" one), you have primary and secondary As. Primary As are typically worth writing about. Primary As into four digits typically have good reason for being so. Secondary As in two or three digits may sometimes be former primaries that have been de-trunked. Some 4-digit A2s might be worth writing home about (e.g. the A3400, a.k.a. Henley-in-Arden to M42 on what used to be the primary A34). Others, like this, are of predominantly (perhaps even purely?) local interest. Precedent is not to keep topics of purely local interest, and I'm not convinced that a case can be made that this road is of serious non-local interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.28.195 (talk • contribs)
    Meanwhile, the more-informed will be aware that there was debate here recently about whether B-roads should have articles - and that debate ended in an approximate stalemate. If B-roads are right on the border of notability, then A-roads are surely over that border. BTW, you do your case no good by not signing your comments - four tildes is all you need to type (~~~~). Grutness...wha? 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A great internet encyclopedia should have everything including road articles and topics of local interest. We all view the world through POV prisms dictated by our local surroundings. -- JJay 08:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per JJay & Grutness. Captain scarlet 17:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyvio. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Meyer Burnett[edit]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Speedy delete. I'm in a revert war with the author over the speedy tag on these pages, and can't figure out any better course of action than to list this on AfD in search of community consensus.

Robert Meyer Burnett was previously speedy-tagged as copy-vio and deleted, but the author reposted it and now removes the {{db-repost}} tag. It is a straight copy-and-paste of http://convergence-con.org/guests/robertmeyerburnett_02.php .

I likewise speedy tagged Mark A. Altman as copy-vio as a copy of http://www.mindfireentertainment.com/principals.php , but the author keeps removing the tag before any admin decides one way or the other. Vslashg 09:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete both, per nom. I re-tagged them. PJM 13:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project HDTP[edit]

NN game mod. Only 1,000 or so google hits. I originally Prod tagged this, but it was removed twice, and a new paragraph was added that is practically slobbering over the mod. Drat (Talk) 10:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Crystal ball, they haven't released anything yet. Also, prod tags should not be reinstated if removed, just bring it here if the deletion is controversial. Night Gyr 11:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete -- Give it a break. Nothing is being advertised; there is no need to delete an article which seeks only to inform. I fail to see an issue here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleriah (talk • contribs) 23:00, February 14, 2006
    • Comment Please sign your messages with ~~~~.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drat (talk • contribs) 2006-02-14 04:07:30.
      • Comment Gah, the irony!--Drat (Talk) 13:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Singular unreleased game mod, not notable as of yet anyway - Skysmith 12:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Daniel Case 16:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - Keep the article. I wrote it to inform people about the project. It isn't my fault people came along and put in a bunch of POV to make it sound like an advertizement. We need to fix the article not delete it completely. Besides the mod is in beta testing phase and is going to be released in a matter of weeks. --Jayson Virissimo 17:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't be notable, since it hasn't even been released yet. If you wish to inform people about the project, do it on your website. --Kinu 17:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kinu I am not a part of the mod I am just a fan of Deus Ex; I don't have any say about what they put on their website. It doesn't make sense to say that it is not notable simply because it hasn't been released. There are hundreds of articles with the "This article or section contains information about a computer or video game in production." tag in them which goes to show that even unreleased material with a significant enough following is noteworthy.--Jayson Virissimo 17:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but those are usually well anticipated games, etc. (as opposed to mods for games), that are made by known publishers with a known history.--Drat (Talk) 02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see your point. Perhaps I will rewrite the article in several months time if it has gained significant popularity.--Jayson Virissimo 01:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The time for this will be if it's released and it gains a substantial following from Deux Ex players then it might warrant a mention in the Deus Ex article. exolon 22:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu Ruby 01:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per exolon. Isn't it funny how "Do not delete" and "Don't delete" only show up on this kind of article? Stifle 12:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steaphanie hammil[edit]

Delete Mis-named, un-encylopaedic, nothing links here. Niels Ø 10:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete blatant copyvio from somewhere or other. MLA 10:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible copyvio and per WP:NOT a newspaper. PJM 12:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably copied from press releases or newspaper articles but not notable even if rewritten. David | Talk 12:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't the place for a memorial or collection of news stories. JPD (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete {{copyvio}} from a wide range of newspapers and websites. Non-encyclopædic content, of no reference value. WP is not an online memorial to the dead.  (aeropagitica)  22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and Geogre's law. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. Probable copyvio. Stifle 00:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 03:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 04:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Educational consultant[edit]

Tagged with {{PROD}} by User:Kinu with the explanation: "Does not seem like an encyclopedic topic; cleanup would not help". However I have the feeling that this is actually an encyclopedic topic and the non-neutrality problem is fixable. Kappa 11:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. [19]. PJM 12:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to have the potential to be turned into an article. MLA 13:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a stub. First version very POV, but could probably be successfully expanded. Thatcher131 14:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand.Blnguyen 03:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magicgrafx Entertainment[edit]

As far as I can make out, this is not an actual video game company, but a name for programmer/game designer Aytaç Aksu, whose main output seems to have been the production of a number of platform games featuring Sonic the Hedgehog characters (most likely in violation of Sega copyright) using the Klik & Play game programming tool. Have also come across Gunner 3, another game from the "Klik community". I very much doubt these are notable enough for Wikipedia. Canley 12:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


what are you talkign about!?
What if it's a violation for SEGA/ copyright/ breaking rules/ code of conduct what ever you wanna call it.
This is WIKI, information about the Business:P/ or the subject which is Magic Entertainment, yes it isn't a company
And why do you want it for deletion, you havn't cleary state your reason.
>x<ino 15:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not stating it clearly enough. No, copyright violation of Sega trademarks is definitely not a reason for deletion. As I say at the end, I was requesting a debate on whether fan-developed games and their programmers are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, I do not think they are, but others may differ. See the policy for software notability at WP:SOFTWARE, which should make it pretty clear. By the way, you haven't exactly clearly stated your own reasoning for keeping the article - I'm quite happy to be convinced otherwise. --Canley 23:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Can't be botherd to read WP:SOFTWARE. But you seem to be right. But some information should be merged with Sonic related article

>x<ino


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

The result of the debate was yeah, I should have deleted this earlier, I just didn't get around to it. DS 23:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procrastinarian[edit]

Seems to be patent nonsense. andy 12:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, looks like a newly created concept. Kappa
  • Speedy delete, G1. Random babble as far as I can tell, despite the numbering. Tagged. PJM 12:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete; incoherent random thoughts and philosophical musings. JKBrooks85 13:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Techno-humorist[edit]

Delete. nn neologism. Google returns only 25 hits for the term, and the linked-to blogger who coined this term is non-notable. Vslashg (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 14:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Advert for a blog. Stifle 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism.Blnguyen 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish National Treasure[edit]

No such award exists; if it's an opinion rather than an award, it's inherently POV Demiurge 12:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nom. Demiurge 12:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can't find Google evidence of an actual award. MLA 13:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest delete, without prejudice, absent verification. I do know about national treasures of Japan, which include a number of living people designated as "living natural treasures" because they carry on Japanese cultural traditions. This seems to be an informal title. It seems possible that a similar designation exists in Ireland, Google search reveals some results [20] and were some verifiable source given, I would keep this in an instant. Smerdis of Tlön 16:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. I'm irish; "National Treasure" is used in the UK and Ireland to designate some whimsy believed by some to be of national importance, or more often, to embody some glorious, but mythic, national characteristic. Unfortunately, there is no designation "Irish National Treasure" and the only two items listed are certainly not treasures, national or otherwise. robindch 16:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable dictdef. Author even states that this is not widely known about even in Ireland. WP:NPOV violation - author's own opinions.  (aeropagitica)  22:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not only not widely known in Ireland, I would assert that it is barely known at all here. It's a POV list. Stifle 00:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Blnguyen 03:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala chief minister[edit]

Useless stub. Aksi great 12:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (Attack page (criteria A6)) --Allen3 talk 13:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Nordin[edit]

Delete due to slanderous article. Mgdm 12:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doubibou[edit]

Delete This page started as an advertisment. Editor deleted original speedy delete tags (twice) and then re-edited it into a meaningless stub. Maustrauser 13:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 14:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and in previous form as ad. MLA 16:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a speedy, but as it stands is no more than an advert. Stifle 00:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn ad.Blnguyen 04:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not redirect to diaper if the brand isn't notable enough for an article? NickelShoe 20:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - ulayiti (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Ufology[edit]

An anon user tagged the page with the wrong template (afd1 instead of afdx - because there was a previous nomination.) Im trying to fix this up - There has already been some discussion on afd which somehow managed to be put at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doubibou which Im moving here -- Astrokey44|talk 15:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (There are many omissions, so much so that it is difficult to argue that it is an accurate history, rather a skewed history that seems to spend a lot of space offering a history that approximates what many Australian UFO researchers know but with some aspects few of us are familar with. The owner of the Wikipedia "Australian Ufology" entry is censoring efforts to correct and edit this skewed and incomplete history so it would be appropriate to highlight the questionable nature of the document and its owner attempt to white out a lot of history and contributions, seemingly in an effort to create a biased and some what flawed history of Australian Ufology.)

      • Delete (Over the years there has been a concerted effort by some UFO researchers to present the real History of Australian Ufology. Independent researchers like Bill Chalker spent years sifting through military files collating Australias UFO History but is continually Deleted from this page. This site is a misrepresentation of the true History of Australian Ufology and should be deleted. User: VUFORS and User: Auforn4u continually disrupt & delete all and every additional information posted to this page. They omit and disregarded the efforts of many Australian ufologists and have kept reverting and posting their own version of Australian Ufology History. User: VUFORS and User: Auforn4u are trying to create a biased and distorted version of Australian UFO History and do so with the blessing of you Wiki voters. If this is what Wiki is all about then one has to wonder if the information on the rest of the Wiki server is verifiable and truly helpful information. AUFORN
    • Comment, This Anon ISP was revered on this very same page for like attacks. [22]Vufors 12:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AUFORN researchers have apparently given up on Wikipedia and trying to add content on this disputed page as well as on Australian Ufology due to constant deletion, harrassment and disruption by Vufors and Auforn4u who are both related to IP 202.83.73.188. Both of these usernames misrepresent the two organisations concerned (VUFORS and AUFORN) and the information provided on either article at the moment is not vouched for by them. See Talk:AUFORN and User talk:Vufors for clarification. --Zeug 08:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This might be one for WP:RFC. The talk page on Australian Ufology redirects to the main contributor's talk page. It is a fairly poor quality article though I could see scope for an article of this sort. On the other hand, there are no other examples of localised Ufology. I know very little about the subject but could be tempted with a Merge vote. Also nominator should sign in. MLA 14:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment hmmm, it seems that this AfD has not been set up right. I looked into how to fix it and found that Australian Ufology has an AfD tag on the article but that the tag refers to an AfD that was concluded with No Consensus on 26 Jan 2006. Also the title is capitalised for Ufology which isn't in line with manual of style. MLA 14:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be alright now. I tagged it with afdx instead of afd1 -- Astrokey44|talk 15:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An anonymous user seems to have a personal vendetta against VUFORS and wants to wipe it off Wikipedia. However he doesn't seem to understand the difference between user pages (User talk:Vufors) and Wikipedia articles (Australian Ufology). He also doesn't understand how the AfD listing page works. I have blocked him for 48 hours. No vote about Australian Ufology. JIP | Talk 15:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • JIP, Delete. The anonymous user is me Diane Harrrison and I do not hold a biasted vendette against VUFORS it is actually the other way around and I had no idea you couldn't nominate a talk page for deletion, but he should be deleted as VUFORS continually breaks Wiki policy. These guys VUFORS & AUFO4u continually delete anything and everything I've posted and other AUFORN UFO researchers have posted to this page. I've been continually deleted from the Australian Administration segment along with Bill Chalker & Robert Frola who have been contributing since the 70s & 80s and the excuse VUFORS gives, we are not pre 1981. If this is the case ACERN and many others listed are neither pre 1981. Do you see any reference which states you have to be pre 81 no does it stat this on this on the page no. So ask yourself who really is trying to post a biased side of history. Go back to the history of this page and you find I am correct. VUFORS like you is an additionalists, but VUFORS continually breaks Wiki policy with the blessing of you guys. You have people posting comments about our Australian UFO history that have no idea of our UFO History, yet some of you vote to keep a biased version of it. Diane Harrison.
    • Comment some but not all of that is true. The talk page at Australian Ufology has been redirected to User:VUFORS talk page. At that talk page it appears that User:VUFORS is not prepared to see any discussion of the removal of that redirect. MLA 15:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with Vufors's redirection of the talk page to his own user talk page, but while the redirect is in place, the user talk page can't be nominated for deletion, as user talk pages in general can't. Regardless of Vufors's conduct, the anonymous user acted wrong in inserting his "delete VUFORS" comment to entirely unrelated AfD discussions, even after I warned him. Nominating Australian Ufology for deletion is all OK. Nominating people's user or user talk pages is not. Vufors should be contacted about the redirection, and if he continues to ignore any discussion, there probably should be an RfC discussion. JIP | Talk 16:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be hard to understand the difference when the article's talk page redirects to the user's talk page. (which is absolutely ridiculous by the way - I removed the redirect) -- Astrokey44|talk 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. This seems to be user dispute over content rather than a dispute over whether this topic is notable enough for Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 19:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (move to Australian ufology) an extensive article on a matter of some interst and note. Worrying that it should even come near AfD. Rich Farmbrough. 22:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Citations & Ref. A 2nd AfD? Worrying- taged by a "Anon"?Vufors 00:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is that worrying? anonymous editors can nominate pages for deletion. this was the edit I was referring to -- Astrokey44|talk 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)". Capitalistroadster 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and encyclopedic subject. Some editors need to stop treating it like their personal possession though. Clean up in line with style and NPOV guidelines. --Canley 03:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, delete some of the editors (or at least some of their behaviors). We should strongly disapprove of nominating for deletion a lengthy detailed article that simply contains or does not contain disputed content. A content dispute is not grounds for AfD unless the entire content of the article is bogus. Grow up or get out, people. alteripse 12:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Important & extensive. 202.83.73.188 22:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe if the editor of this page: see (User talk:Vufors) talk, stopped deleting additional information posted by Australian UFO researchers, then maybe this page could become an unbiased version of Australian UFO History. I personally can not see this issue being sorted until User VUFORS stops reverting, omitting, and deleting. (User talk:Vufors) this is vandalism of an article. 202.94.83.23
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Coffee 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaseware[edit]

  • Not notable. Original research? Sleepyhead 14:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears as if the listing has already been deleted. There is no information in the entry. JKBrooks85 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was advertising according to the history. Is now nothing as original author has blanked it. MLA 15:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The author blanked it, this qualifies for CSD:G7. Stifle 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - ulayiti (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stumptown Coffee Roasters[edit]

Delete. Non-notable business. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone from Portland asserts this has great local significance... and wants to update the article to this effect.--Isotope23 14:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. Stumptown (as it's called) is a point of pride for many Portlanders (of which I am one). It's a bit tricky to say why without breaking neutrality. Some factors that contribute to Stumptown's local reputation are the quality of its coffee, the manner in which they purchase and roast their coffee (fair trade, organic, and otherwise), the local celebrity of many of their workers (Stumptown put out a record called "Worker's Comp", featuring musicians that are also employees), and the cultural events (music and art) that they host at their cafes. They are a Portland success story, thriving even as the region faced economic depression. I'm not now, nor ever have I been, affiliated with Stumptown except as a patron. I set up the entry for Stumptown Coffee Roasters as a disambig. of the term Stumptown. If adding the above facts will validate the article, I will gladly update. My impression was that, since it was a stub, it could be expanded upon later. -- Oed 18:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK, but here's what I'm looking for: There is a bar near where I live called Miller's that is widely regarded in the Detroit area for having the best hamburgers around. Obviously some people will disagree with this statement, but in general many people believe this to be the case. If you look on [24], Miller's took 1st place. GQ listed Miller's at #8 on their list of "places you have to eat a hamburger before you die". Local newpapers, magazines, etc. have all consistantly ranked Miller's #1 in the area. There is adequate evidence to make a case for notability if someone wanted to write an article about this business and support it's notability. This is the kind of information I'm looking for about Stumptown. Newspaper articles, media, press, etc.--Isotope23 14:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OED: Not only would you want to add those facts (looks like you have), but you'd want to cite the reputable sources they came from. You're an editor compiling other people's published facts and opinions; you're not to insert any facts and opinions of your own. If Stumptown coffee has enough local notability that the local paper has written articles about them, and you can cite such articles, that makes this article a keeper. ikkyu2 (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes sense, I will add citations to specific awards and articles in paper publications. -- Oed 15:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I have lived in Portland for most of my life and Stumptown has become very well-regarded and well-known name around Portland. They are held in extreme high esteem for good business practice, excellent coffee, and supporting the community in a variety of ways. These are exceptionally good folks that are held up as a model as what a successful, locally owned socially conscious business can be. --C0r 10:09, 16 February 2006

Weak Keep When I went to college at Southern Oregon, a buddy of mine from portland had some Stumptown beans shipped down once a month. It was quite a devotion to a paticular coffee. That said, I can't assert any other notability. -AKMask 20:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations/References Added On the advice of various parties, I've created a "References" section to cite a number of publications which support the local importance of Stumptown. If these satisfy Wikipedia criteria, I would suggest removing the deletion tag. -- Oed 19:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Oed. Also, I live in Portland and can vouch for the company being iconic here. Steve Casburn 04:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I (disclosure: a Portlander) believe Stumptown Coffee Roasters to be significant and unique enough to qualify being kept, despite its commercial nature. In particular, I think the following reasons describe their signficance:
    • The large number of small, independent coffee roasters in Portland which now exist can be traced back to the success of Stumptown Roasters. Prior to their existence, there were no small, in-cafe roasteries, let alone ones which use small batch, European antique roasters. Now I can name three such cafes within 2 miles of my house, for example.
    • Stumptown Roasters helped raise the bar for both coffee quality (as grown, roasted and served) and, perhaps more importantly, for treatment of workers. Stumptown not only pays top dollar to workers, but they get many benefits (health and dental), numerous vacation days, get long periods off for such activities as touring with bands, etc. Many cafes have (had to) follow suit. In return they demand quality and expertise from their barristas, thus furthering the quality of the coffee drinks made.
    • To say the owner and coffee-selector of Stumptown Coffee Roasters is choosy is an understatement. He gives a huge amount of time to making sure both the coffee beans are good and the people who grow them are treated right. He often pays well above the "Fair Trade" standard price of coffee, and very frequently visits the farms the coffee comes from in South America, Africa, and else where. He has set the highest price ever paid per pound for coffee because he thought the farm's work was worth it and deserved it. It is another example of Stumptown raising the bar in the industry.

I understand the desire to see the proof of these things. I will try to do my best to add sources to what has already been put in this article. I simply believe the impact of Stumptown Roasters is far beyond "quality of coffee" (re: good hamburgers). The impact and following of Stumptown is near cultish at this point (for better or worse; an entirely different discussion there). Now I shall attempt to verify some of this info via sources on the web. Thanks for hearing me out. Jon Lon Sito 07:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ok, i added a whole bunch of references. (sorry the oregonian one had to be to a google cache, but that article has a substantial amount of reference material and is the biggest newspaper in the state.) the article reads pretty crummy right now, but i hope this reflects the impact stumptown has had on portland. Jon Lon Sito 09:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Expo[edit]

Delete. Non-notable defunct exposition. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; it appears to have had sufficient notability: was sponsored by IBM and HP, but it especially had some references about it written by people uninvolved with its organization [25]. - Liberatore(T) 16:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Liberatore. --Myles Long 21:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and expand): notable. --Karnesky 00:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete defunct exhibition. Stifle 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be historically notable.Blnguyen 04:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I don't think it's useful to write "expand", either one can voice the opinion it will be expanded or expand it themselves. There is no way to force someone else to do it for ya. Ifnord 03:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunington Sachs[edit]

I was made aware of this article during the discussion of whether to delete Suzy Sachs. Notability appears questionable. Mild delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems to be a family love in with his wife and vanity articles. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Talk!) 18:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable lawyer.--Isotope23 18:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notable involvement in projects mentioned in article, non-notable biography - WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "media, sports and entertainment attornies" are not notable simply for being "media, sports and entertainment attornies." Perhaps if he'd shot someone or defended a high-profile client or something. Unfortunately not a speedy, since it does attempt to assert notability. It's just that the assertion is false. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Friday. Reason: (made up in school one day "The idea of a Ceiling Gnome was first brought up in 2004. When they were first reported being spotted in a ceiling in a Ohio schools ceiling") --lightdarkness (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling gnomes[edit]

Original research, unfunny joke, possible hoax Savidan 15:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just like classics gnomes! Why shouldn't this be allowed?!?

  • Speedy delete. Obvious, and unfunny, hoax article. --Phronima 15:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chalupa shot[edit]

silly (unsigned Afd from Tc61380)

  • At best, merge with Dallas Mavericks article. But my preference would be delete as nn. — RJH 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Chalupa, which needs expansion. -Colin Kimbrell
  • Delete. A common basketball-related promo which long precedes the Mavericks (there was a similar one at the major university I attended), thus nn. Daniel Case 16:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Taco Bell, and maybe a tiny, little bit with Chalupa, but TB seems to more appropriate merge.Delete. Not worth mentioning anywhere. Peyna 18:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or weak merge: At best, a passing mention in the respective team's article is best, and not with the company, as it has nothing to do with the corporate entity Taco Bell, but a local franchise in agreement with the Mavericks. This kind of promotion is hardly notable in itself, as many sports teams have one, i.e., I read the Cavaliers were elated in their blowout win last night, but only after they crossed the century mark, so that they could get coupons. Also in this regard, I would not be averse to a passing mention at chalupa, though, with a note as to the general nature of such promotions. Psst... drop the chalupa. --Kinu 19:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC); edited 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kinu. -- Kjkolb 21:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't merge with anything. It's a (one-time) local marketing gimmick and simply not notable. We have some for every stadium here in Phoenix, with Circle K, McDonald's, etc. for the Phoenix Suns, Phoenix Coyotes, Arizona Diamondbacks, Arizona Cardinals, so I'm sure they have one for each team in every stadium of every major city and we shouldn't be writing articles on each one of them. 40 google hits with the top 2 refering to this article and the one that directs to it? I'm not impressed.


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1800Flowers[edit]

saved from prod as "notable" but is clearly an advertising stub Thatcher131 16:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blatent valentine's day inspired adcruft.--Isotope23 17:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up. Definitely notable, but there's nothing here worth saving. 128.231.88.4 18:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising.  (aeropagitica)  22:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but clean up. This doesn't read like an ad (it doesn't read like much of anything at all) & it is notable under WP:CORP --Karnesky 00:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful stub, notable company. Grandmasterka 02:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn/ad. Blnguyen 04:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CORP. Well-known to listeners of talk radio in the US. Should probably have a cleanup tag added. youngamerican (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up. That means it needs to be expanded before the end of the AFD and then I may change then. See User:Stifle/Keep and cleanup for rationale. Stifle 16:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I gave it a quickie cleanup to fit within the guidelines of a stub. youngamerican (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that's exactly how it should work. Keep. Stifle 16:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've expanded it a bit more and reworked the name. If the article survives AfD, it should be renamed 1-800-Flowers. youngamerican (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a notable company, established for almost 20 years by now. Survived the dotcom crash. --Vizcarra 17:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename 1-800-Flowers. Notable company. Nice clean-up by young American TMS63112 20:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet criteria for keeping articles on companies: it's not in any stock index, there's no indication of number of employees or revenues, and its sole notability is due to its own advertising (this article possibly included); include this one, and we'll have every company that advertises somewhat, or has revenue of some revealed amount...etc. Very bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Keep I stand corrected; I couldn't find a link to "Investor Relations" on its website and drew an erroneous conclusion. In my view $700M+ revenues merits inclusion. Carlossuarez46 01:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above is inaccurate. It is on NASDAQ as "FLWS." As a publicly traded company, you can find the requested info (733.74M USD revenue; 3000 employees). Finally, there has been a lot of non-trivial, non-ad press on the company. --Karnesky 01:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable company, page needs clean-up/expansion however.--Jersey Devil 06:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – company is large, 20 years old, publicly-traded, and most importantly, has been advertising ad nauseum on the radio nation-wide (U.S.) for as long as I remember. They are infamous if not famous. A rename to 1-800-Flowers or 1-800-Flowers.com per TMS63112, would be a good idea too. ×Meegs 23:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Obviously notable and appears to have been cleaned up since the first few delete votes were cast. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep as misplaced nomination of a harmless redirect. - ulayiti (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon bus[edit]

Dragon bus is not a term for chinatown bus Tc61380 16:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Google would seem to disagree... [26]. I've no idea if this is a common term though.--Isotope23 17:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination is in the wrong place, WP:RFD is down the corridor on the left. Stifle 00:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect, which is what it is now. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 12:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMACS[edit]

Poorly written, questionable notability. Moderately strong delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll rewrite it to a better quality from what I know. It is a certifiable and real-life program; their website is at: http://imacs.org/imacsweb/default.aspx. --LoganK 14:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 16:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain As it stands, not notable enough. How long a grace period should it get? Thatcher131 16:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, doesn't really seem to be an encyclopaedia article. Stifle 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising page for a new non-notable company that calls itself an "institute". --Vizcarra 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

I work at IMACS and a student created that page. It is definitely worthy of being there, as IMACS has locations all over the country.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HammondWiki[edit]

Was tagged as WP:PROD. The tag was removed under the motivation "give it a chance". I tried Google for link to this site and search for name, but found nothing showing that WP:WEB are met. - Liberatore(T) 16:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB as mentioned (and I doubt it ever will since the subject matter is just too limited). Daniel Case 17:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, falls short of WP:WEB and appears to be an advert for their wiki.--Isotope23 17:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAMEY[edit]

Neologism, no evidence of widespread use of acronym. (Posted by User:Friday on behalf of 82.15.28.195 (talk • contribs) who due to being not logged in, cannot create pages and complete the process)

  • Delete per nomination, unless sources indicating widespread use are added. We're not here to make up new acronyms. Some info here could be merged as appropriate, if it's not already covered elsewhere. Friday (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{User:Vacuum/sig}} 16:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not in wide use yet, and shows no sign of getting bigger. --ZachPruckowski 17:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and perhaps rename to Internet Big Five or something similar. These companies have long been at the top of the internet heap. A list of their acquisitions seems entirely valid to me. -- JJay 16:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Internet Big Five" a well-known name for this particular set of companies? Google sure doesn't seem to think so. If an established name for this group of companies doesn't already exist, it's not up to us to invent one. It looks to me like important acquisitions are already covered in articles on the individual companies. Deciding which 5 companies are the "top five" and inventing a new name for them is original research and we shouldn't be doing that. Duplicating content found elsewhere is undesirable forking and also should not be done. Friday (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. No evidence this neologism is widely used, or that the concept of an "Internet Big Five" is pervasive.--Isotope23 18:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Jakken 18:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • GYM (technology) was created as a fork of sort of GAMEY. That acronym is more popular, although still relatively rare. I'm not sure that that one meets the WP:NOR cut either, but it's a better contender than GAMEY. --ZachPruckowski 05:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Who invents such acronyms? They are all created by one particular writer and then their use is either adopted or dropped. The acronym has already been picked up in other wikipedia articles. I think we should wait to see if adoption occurs, then the question becomes how long should we wait.
  • Keep Shows significant ammount of Google results which are relevant. Also, very useful to remeber the big 5. Jayden


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 09:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial Tea Ceremony[edit]

Was submitted to WP:PROP, but contributor has placed an explanation on article's talk page. In my view this may constitute a disagreement with the prod template, so submitting for community consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 16:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What part of the nom says it should be deleted? Kappa 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep, can't see any reason to delete. Stifle 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, still looks like vanity or a joke or a collection of Chinese characters or the adult equivalent of something made up in school one day. Will need complete rewrite if kept. —Home Row Keysplurge 13:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real tea ceremony, not vanity or a joke. Needs a new name. Kappa 13:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takami Servers[edit]

Was submitted to WP:PROP, but prod template was removed (albeit anonymously by one-edit contributor). Therefore submitting for community consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable company.--Isotope23 17:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was scamdelete. Mailer Diablo 04:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scamdoo[edit]

Zero googles for "scamdoo", and it fails WP:NFT. From the article: "The word was recently popularized at Ave Maria School of Law by students working on a research paper that incorporated a scamdoo (as of then it was not named) because technical language was needed." As such, delete for being a non-notable protologism that's not in common use. Colin Kimbrell 16:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, what are those circles with a line through called? I'll be using 'scamdoo' to describe them I think, although with no google hits, I must agree with the delete. A better place for it would be Urban Dictionary. James Kendall [talk] 17:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As of that matter does the Urban dictionary list it? If not,why on earth would it need an article of its own? J.J.Sagnella 17:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not in Urban Dictionary[27].-Colin Kimbrell 17:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are we even considering deletion? DELETE. J.J.Sagnella 18:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Protologism. I like that word. Where did you come across it?MCP 04:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a place for the promotion of new words or concepts. Kappa 19:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neologism. Personally, I prefer the term "circle with a line through it." --Kinu 19:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and imagine a "circle with a line through it" and the word "Neologism" in the middle.--Isotope23 19:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom., us gov. seems to think those are generally "prohibition" signs, or "circle & diagonal" [28]. I do like it, though. Makemi 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circle, slash, delete per nomination. Barno 20:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a Las Vegas, Nevada native and a graduate of UNLV. I am certain that I have heard the word being used around UNLV's campus to describe exactly what the article says, "a circle with a line through it." I can't say whether it is appropriate as a Wikipedia article. However, if as the article says, it was created in 2005, the use of the word has spread very quickly. Perhaps students at Ave Maria School of Law are claiming to have invented a word that has existed for some time. Or perhaps, the idea needed a word to describe it and people have caught on quickly. Either way, the words approptiatness on Wikipedia aside, the words legitimacy should not be discarded for lack of common use. By the way, if a word such as "Dirty Sanchez" has a place on Wikipedia, why shouldn't Scamdoo?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.68 (talk • contribs)
Dirty Sanchez is a term in common usage, and as such, not a good precedent. It's relatively easy to find examples of it being used in popular culture (such as 555,000 hits on Google [29]).-Colin Kimbrell 23:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that it has been added to Urban Dictionary since the AFD opened, some time after 5 PM on the 14th. -Colin Kimbrell 22:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it seems like something someone made up in school one day. Dave 23:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI suggest reading this link of What Wikipedia is not. [Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day]

It is a textbook example deletion J.J.Sagnella 22:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 21:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Ricardo[edit]

Going on a limb... Couldn't find evidence that subject satisfies WP:BIO, but this could be systematic bias combined with ISP problems. Half of these gave me 404 errors, so my standard "happy to see evidence of notability" line applies with a bit more force.
brenneman(t)(c) 11:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, hoping that WP:CSB doesn't have me taken out back and shot. Stifle 18:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 17:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability.--Isotope23 18:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 18:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Softlad[edit]

Barely any content, should be deleted or at best merged into an article on slang. WP:NOT a dictionary of English slang Ryanjunk 17:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn neologism, dicdef. Makemi 19:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete regional neologism.  (aeropagitica)  22:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as regional, unverifiable slang. Stifle 00:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn slang. Blnguyen 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a real expression that used to be heard in Brookside a lot but it is just a regional slang word and not encyclopedic. Keresaspa 14:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PCNX[edit]

Insignificant webpage with Alexa ranking of 4,616,231. I did not know there were even 4,616,231 sites on the web. Could this possibly be the least popular website on the entire Internet? Uucp 17:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficiently notable per Alexa and Google, advertisement with "we" and "you" but no evidence of WP:Importance. Barno 20:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 01:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Ruby 04:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alexa only tracks usage for people who have their toolbar installed. I haven't seen any of their toolbars around. Give small sites a chance I'd say. (Uucp: Sounds more like you are flaming) Page does seem like portions were lifted from PCNX.com, though.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Feel free to merge, AfD isn't the place to decide that. - ulayiti (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of emo groups[edit]

Delete - Ambiguous use of the term emo, follows no definitive guidelines for classification of this music genre, many definitions exist and are not agreed upon regarding the word "emo"- this article does not specify which definition of emo it is referring to; there are better lists that exist on Wikipedia that are more clear as to their content and better represent the genre Yakwhacker 18:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Chris's post below, I've reconsidered. I'm not sure List of emo bands is the best place for a merge anyway given the layout of that page. Of course any emo list is going to be a constant edit war by the nature of the label. Abstain for now and strongly endorse using categories instead of more arbitrary lists.--Isotope23 14:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We should be using categories for this. Additionally, this nomination is disingenuous, given that Yakwhacker created List of emo bands this month, while this article has existed for six months. He should have edited this article and/or moved it. Additionally, how does creating "List of emo bands" solve the "problems" that he's addressing in his argument for deletion? -- ChrisB 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this should be a category. Not particularly opposed to a merge. Stifle 01:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both into List of emo musical groups. Shouldn't delete categories and list serve different purposes. Bands that don't have articles yet cannot be included in a category (Category:Emo musical groups). --Vizcarra 17:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharting[edit]

Interesting concept, but completely original research / terminology, see [30] OscarTheCattalk 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shame, as it's a well written article, and a lot of time has gone into it. If only it had been published elsewhere. Weak delete James Kendall [talk] 21:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:V and yeah it is a shame because it is a well written article... just not sourced or verifable.--Isotope23 21:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Anyone know of a WikiBook that would benefit from the addition of this information? Ikkyu2 22:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Researching this, within the boundaries of the law, would make a great Wikinews article. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. Pegasus1138 06:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starkman[edit]

Probably hoax, can't verify any of the claims here. It is also a dicdef. Peyna 18:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom., also possibly attack since the only refs. I can find are for a last name. Makemi 19:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both above. Fightindaman 20:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, possible hoax.. Blnguyen 04:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, hoax Ian13/talk 14:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable hoax, possible attack. Accurizer 17:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax, flat out. --lightdarkness (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Likely hoax. WP is not obliged to retain items whose veracity is difficult to verify. The onus is on the contributor(s) to observe WP:V, WP:CITE. ENCEPHALON 22:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nova in trouble[edit]

Originally listed on prod, but tag removed by IP; appears to be some kind of old press release, but it definitely doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Peyna 18:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as complete bollox about which no one cares. Makemi 19:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as contextless nonsense.--Isotope23 19:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inadequate context, probably would be non-notable in context. Ikkyu2 22:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog. Article appears to be a blog-type entry on a dispute between two Irish radio stations. Capitalistroadster 00:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borderline speedy, no context and WP:BALLS. Stifle 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn junk. Blnguyen 04:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per my prod on this page: old, non-encyclopedic propaganda. Darthsco 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Employee leasing[edit]

Delete as another advertisement for this author's website(s). I had originally placed this article in Proposed Deletions, but the author removed the {{prod}} template, so here we are in AfD. This user has received several {{nospam}} warnings on his talk page, most of which he has blanked to make it look as if they never happened. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, let's hear it for Vanispamcruftisement! May it be forever banned. But seriously, non-notable, spam, advert. Makemi 19:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as adcruft... and not even particularly interesting or revolutionary adcruft at that. Newsflash for the author: The IT world has been working on that model for 10+ years. It's called contracting/consulting.--Isotope23 19:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, adcruft. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Professional employer organization. Dave6 20:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising, particularly poorly-written effort, too.  (aeropagitica)  22:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Advertisement masquerading as an article. —ERcheck @ 01:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if rewritten, as we should have an article on the practice, delete otherwise. -- Kjkolb 03:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. W.marsh 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Christian[edit]

Non-notable term; new word; unsourced; possibly vanity KHM03 19:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Delete Redirect no evidence this word is generally used in the context this article places it in. This term is used for a very wide variety of beliefs. I can't see a general enough usage to support this article.--Isotope23 19:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Swedenborgianism, as Neo-Christian is. Makemi 19:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can get on board with the redirect.--Isotope23 20:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 20:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me as well. KHM03 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Makemi. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 21:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been bold and created the redirect. If this was "out of process" feel free to revert me. Makemi 22:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 12:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Four[edit]

Unverified hoax. Non-notable unused term. Delete Ardenn 19:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete IDK if it is a hoax, but it clearly is a topic not deserving its own article based on subject length and content. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am looking for more information for reference. The term has been thrown around when I was at Queen's and U of T, but no one seems to know anything about it. I don't want to see this kind of history go into a vault and forgotten about Writerchick 19:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there's this. Looks like it refers to an annual sports tournament among the four universities named. Potentially a keep if we expand on that usage, although I can't speak for whether it's ever been used outside of that context. Bearcat 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's hardly verifiability. Ardenn 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A reference to "the Old Four sports tournament" on one of the competing universities' web pages doesn't constitute verification of the fact that there's a sports tournament called Old Four that includes the university whose web page says it's competing in the Old Four? That's an interesting definition of "verifiability". Bearcat 20:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My bad, I missed that. Ardenn 20:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think a solid case was made if it was indeed a hoax, but it has been proven not to be a hoax. And the tournament still runs today. So there is nothing that makes this false or irrelevant.--69.156.144.164 21:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn 24.57.131.18 15:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.233.153 (talk • contribs)
    • I believe only the votes of signed in editors count, correct? -- Geo Swan 20:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I may have been partly responsible for flagging this page as a potential hoax, but there seems to be no reason to dispute the truth of the "Old Four" competition. Here is a quote from one of the external references:
This weekend the men’s and women’s soccer teams will be heading to Montreal to compete in the Old Four Tournament which includes Queen’s, Western and McGill. While points are not accumulated in these exhibition contests, pride and bragging rights are on the line for the four oldest universities in Canada. Slowmover 16:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we haven't heard of something, doesn't mean it's a hoax. And furthermore, the edits by the creator of this page look like serious edits in general, even if the topics may not seem very "encyclopedic" to most people. Slowmover 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Never in common use, more like a neologism. Even the G10 article is suspicious. I never heard of it, I went to one of those universities. Ifnord 03:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep -- Geo Swan 20:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable YCCHAN 02:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Marudubshinki under CSD:A7 (article on a person, persons, club, or band with no assertion of notability). Stifle 23:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teffagem[edit]

I can't find any evidence that this band meets the guidelines at WP:MUSIC - no evidence of any releases. CDC (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete {{db-band}} candidate - no albums, singles in charts, notable members.  (aeropagitica)  22:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per aeropagitica. Stifle 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Aeropagitica Ruby 04:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quezza[edit]

Delete. Article is nothing more than an ad for the software. LrdChaos 19:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another advert that fails to assert the notability of its subject.  (aeropagitica)  22:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - adverting. Does not meet WP:WEB. —ERcheck @ 00:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the article's first sentence. Stifle 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn ad . Blnguyen 04:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Inputs[edit]

Listed at copyright problems, but not a copyvio--posted by copyright holder. Notability also challenged, so listing here. No vote. Chick Bowen 19:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (5 del, 1 smerge, 1 keep). - ulayiti (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warps[edit]

nn game playing society. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable local game club. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as one of the four largest societies in University College Cork and organizers of the largest gaming convention in the Republic of Ireland. Disclaimer: I am a member. Stifle 18:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please consider adding some reason for deletion other than "nn" or "non-notable". All that means is "I think this article should be deleted". Please tell us why! Stifle 18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did. I think this article should be deleted because the gaming group is not notable. This is a perfectly valid, time-tested, well-established reason for deleting. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This doesn't seem to be a popular reason for deletion these days, but you're entitled to choose it. As a deletionist, I try to avoid it myself. Stifle 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since lack of notability is a de jure reason for speedy deletion, what makes it less of a valid reason for non-speedy deletion? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've cleaned it up a bit. Will do so more soon. Stifle 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is kept, it should be moved to WARPS as that is the society's real name. Stifle 21:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Due to the rewrite and the lack of number of participants, I think we could use some more comments here, thank you. W.marsh 20:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm concerned that it is not encyclopedic, in the sense that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias generally assert notability of their subject in the introduction. I finished the entire article and was left uncertain why the article author felt I, or anyone, might spend time reading about this topic. I could be convinced otherwise with a stronger assertion of notability, but at the moment I am inclined to believe that the subject is inherently unencyclopedic due to its lack of notability. Ikkyu2 22:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight Merge and Redirect to University College Cork or, preferably, a new article with a name like 'University College Cork student groups.' There's no reason to have a separate page for every student group of every University. --Karnesky 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Their forum doesn't have enough traffic to even show up on Alexa Ruby 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a quick proposal for a rewrite in the article discussion page. I have removed some of what I considered to be non-encyclopedic information, and added some factual information that was provided in this discussion. I have absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter, so I'm sure there are technical errors, but hopefully it provides a basis for cleaning and keeping the article if the claims for notability can be verified (e.g. largest gaming convention in the Republic of Ireland). If these claims cannot be properly verified, I will lean towards delete. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 03:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it be acceptable to write a new article, one that would show that the society is of note? Or would it be more adviseable to add UCC societie's as an extension and have WARPS under that? 14:42 February 15 2006 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuicksilverK (talk • contribs)
  • Add'l Comment I have moved my proposed rewrite into the article itself (I guess that means I re-wrote it, huh?). I have also added the {{verify}} template to draw attention to my concern of verifiable sources. It seems as if the group may have a degree of notability, but as I stated above, I would want verifiable sources of these claims added to the article in order to keep it. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 16:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beige (artists)[edit]

nn record label/artists' collective/whatever. post-data.org has no alexa ranking. '"Joseph Beuckman" beige' brings up 16 Google hits. '"Paul B. Davis beige' brings up 178. '"Paul Davis" beige' brings up 272. '"Tardy Tracks" "The Bitwise Operators"' brings up 8. 'cubehouse "mutant disco"' brings up 45, and there is an amazon.co.uk and an artistdirect mention, but Mutant Disco is a compilation disc. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • thx, trying to make a better entry, they are referenced from a few wikipedia pages but have no entry Rudytardy 23:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • updated entry, "8-bit construction set" brings up 12,600 google hits, beigerecords.com has alexa ranking, "cory arcangel" brings up 140,000 google hits. BEIGE has non-working links from artist_collectives, art_collectives, and cory_arcangel wikipedia pages.Rudytardy 00:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 20:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as random non-notable record label. Stifle 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-dom[edit]

There is already an entry on Wiktionary for -dom. CSD A5 appears to be applicable; however Mikkalai is in disagreement with my interpretation. So I will bring to AfD. James084 21:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD-A5 is thoroughly inapplicable. Did you read it at all? A test question for James084: which wikipedia procedure is mentioned in A5? mikka (t) 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • del. No potential beyond dicdef IMO. mikka (t) 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 20:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing beyond a Wiktionary entry, if that.--Adam (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this were to be deleted, then are the other suffixes to be deleted as well? --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef, and yeah... I would apply this logic to all prefixes and suffixes.--Isotope23 21:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to Plantronics. - ulayiti (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volume logic[edit]

Originally {{prod}}ed for advertising, that was switched to an {{advert}} tag. Then THAT was takn off, and although the article has been re-written, it _still_ reads like an advert to me. So, consensus please on this article's notability or lack thereof. Few Google hits to boot. Avi 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment see also Volume logic plug-in. Plantronics is a notable company. However, this is certainly ad copy and appears to have been written by one "Amy Huson (Director of Marketing)," who is listed as the only notable person in the company. :) Maybe this could all be merged into Plantronics and these articles redirected? --Craig Stuntz 20:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 20:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - It says it is a Division, not its own company. Not sure many (if any) divisions warrant their own article, certainly not this one. -Jcbarr 20:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Plantronics. Stifle 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Plantronics, nothing especially notable about this division. -- Mithent 01:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Plantronics FloNight 19:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth party[edit]

I can't find any evidence that this party existed, aside from a now defunct website. The party itself is also dead, but did not get any mentions on Google News for its demise or for any other reason. It gets 76 unique Google results, a lot of them are website directories. They describe it a little, but there is no mention of how many members it has, how long it has existed, what impact it has had or anything else useful about the party, except that it is against equality. -- Kjkolb 20:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also, note that the article was written by an anonymous IP address --TBC??? ??? ??? 20:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non existent. DrIdiot 23:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as defunct. Stifle 01:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a page listing dead political parties if it exists, otherwise Delete as non-notable. --Billpg 10:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ---J.Smith 10:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was disambiguate .mikka (t) 21:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up[edit]

This doesn't seem like a very encyclopedic topic to me. It's seems to be basically a dictionary definition of a commonly used phrase, so I say delete disambiguate. Facts&moreFacts 20:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a dictionary definition with non-notable trivia. Delete. Mattley (Chattley) 20:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

FUCK YOU


The result of the debate was redirect to Fuck.SoothingR 21:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you[edit]

Dictionary definition. Delete per wikipedia is not a dictionary. Facts&moreFacts 21:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sahraeean[edit]

As it stands this is a vanity CV. However, it claims he is a notable ecconomist. But I can't verify most of it, other than from his own website, which is certainly vanity. -Doc ask? 21:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Doc... and it's not even an article... it reads like a resume.--Isotope23 21:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. [31]. [32] [33] [34] Just because he's mostly written about and quoted in non-English-language media doesn't mean he's not notable. Monicasdude 22:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up and rename or delete - The current name only includes his last name, the article is of poor quality. Would only keep if quality is improved. DrIdiot 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude. Also, article quality, in the presence of presumptive notability, is never a basis for deletion. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Definitely notable, and I shouldn't be deleted just because it needs cleanup. That said, it's copied directly from the subject's CV [35] – even though it's mostly just a list of facts, there is some prose in there, and I'm quite worried about it's copyright. ×Meegs 22:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.SoothingR 21:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bling Kong[edit]

Delete - Found virtually nothing on google [36]. I'm assuming that it fails WP:MUSIC. Forbsey 21:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I checked both Google websites (US and UK) and the search pages for the band seem to be monotonous. Fanficgurl 4:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You would say that, Fanficgurl, since you created the article! Forbsey 09:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally nn. The most information on this band is on a Myspace site. Does not satisfy criteria WP:MUSIC in any way I can see. If you find any criteria clearly satisfied for keeping as laid out in WP:MUSIC, let me know and I will change my vote. DrIdiot 23:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't sign into my user name when I edited the Bling Kong article (I know I should have), but I added some news articles in there. One of them is a Spin Magazine article. According to WP:MUSIC, an article about a person(s) in music on Wikipedia has to have been mentioned in a notable media magazine. And Spin is one of them. Fanficgurl 5:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Right now the article is virtually empty. Fill it up with information. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 22:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Adashiel and Marudubshinki, consecutively, per CSD:A7 (article on a person, persons, group, or band with no assertion of notability). Stifle 23:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian transportation sensation[edit]

Non-notable, probably non-existant group of self-proclaimed wikipedia vandals. My previous Speedy Delete tag was removed, so I am listing this in AfD. Ryanjunk 21:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Chairboy per CSD:A7 (biographical article with no notability asserted). Stifle 01:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott grella[edit]

stupid Tc61380 21:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, though "Stupid" is not a criteria for deletion. If you are going to AfD something, at least cite a valid reason... like doesn't meet WP:BIO no notability.--Isotope23 21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Isotope23 DrIdiot 22:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strahilo[edit]

Dicdef-ish. Obli (Talk) 22:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. if it's uncommon, why include it in an encyclopedia? analogous to adding "humpalump" as an uncommon english name. DrIdiot 22:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DrIdiot. Possibly transwiki to Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. Stifle 01:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 23:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haterade[edit]

I originally put a prod tag on this, but user:162.111.235.17 raised objection on the talk page, so it's being sent to AfD. It's a non-notable cocktail, is unencyclopedic in content, with little hope of any meaningful context being added Cnwb 22:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  22:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom DrIdiot 22:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Unverifiable. Stifle 01:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Surely Haterade is a slang dicdef not this nonsense. MLA 09:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 13:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time and methods engineering[edit]

This was on WP:PROD for five days but as an industrial engineer who has heard of this stuff before, I don't feel that it should be deleted without review. I vote keep, but I'm open to renaming as well. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trick for these topics is coming up with a name that is both descriptive and universally used. Basically, this is a general term that is similar in meaning to some other topics, so it's easy to talk about this without actually calling it "time and methods engineering". But if you were to say to someone in IE, "I'm doing some time and methods engineering", they'd have a good idea of what you're talking about. I can't say exactly where I've heard it before, but here are some examples of where it is used: Maynard is a major player in IE (see MOST), and they offer a course in "Intensified Time Study and Methods Engineering" ([37]). University of Wisconsin and other universities offer courses in "Methods engineering" (IE 470; [38] - pdf). Another course syllabus refers to "Methods-time analysis, or methods engineering" ([39]). It may be better to not have this article and instead have a methods engineering article and a work measurement article, but because the areas are related, and because it's not that big of a difference from what we have now, I don't see any reason to make that switch, especially for an article this short. --Spangineer (háblame) 12:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (5 del, 1 keep). - ulayiti (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North of ok[edit]

Non-notable band that does not meet WP:MUSIC. Prod tag removed, so it's being sent to AfD Cnwb 22:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom DrIdiot 22:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. They claim to have toured the USA and Canada, but I call the myspace test. Stifle 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Blnguyen 04:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep band does meet WP:MUSIC. As the band has toured Nationally and Internationally in the US and Canada with some of the biggest acts in Christian Music (John Reuben and Spoken (band)). Also, I say the the myspace test is weak, as many bands both signed and unsigned use myspace to post their tour info and new songs quickly and easily, it is also one of the fastest ways to get in touch with thousands of fans instantly, just because it may be used by many unsigned bands, does not mean that myspace does not have it's rewards for artists. Look at the list of major artists who use myspace to get word out to fans about upcoming releases and tours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musikman316 (talk • contribs)
    • The criteria from WP:Music you refer to is "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources". Can you cite the sources which reported on this tour? This tour isn't mentioned in the article. I went back through the history and could only find a passing reference to it. Can you add more information to the article? I think this could help your cause. Cnwb 21:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't worry too much about the Myspace Test - it's not official Wikipedia policy, just the personal opinion of Stifle (though I have to admit that I agree with him/her). The test may not even apply in this case, as the band do have an official page on their own URL (although at this point, my browser's drawing a blank on it - "Safari can’t open the page “http://www.northofok.com/” because it can’t find the server “www.northofok.com”. Cnwb 21:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This 404 is why I invoked the myspace test originally (and yes, it's unofficial, it's in user-space). Stifle 23:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you tell me which artists with Wikipedia articles use myspace? Stifle 23:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their site seems to be down, although I know they are having problems with their host and former site designer. The tour info for the John Reuben/Spoken/North of Ok tour is here [40]. Thanks. Musikman316 23:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the MySpace test. Together, we can prevent articles about garage bands from consuming the entirity of Wikipedia. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosley's[edit]

Appears to be a cafe, certainly doesn't look notable. I tried Proposed deletion, but since the tag was removed by the article creator I'll list it here. Leithp 22:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn DrIdiot 22:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • its not a cafe its a shop that is very valuable to the population of Beddau, just because you come from somewhere people have heard of doesnt mean you are better than us. don't delete this page as it would be unfair on the people of Beddau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.240.38 (talk • contribs)
  • Non-neutral commentary about a small shop in a town. I'm sure that just about every town has a popular shop of some type, but that doesn't make it notable. Delete — RJH 16:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no-one's small shops or cafes or pubs get articles unless they're especially notable. -- Mithent 18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as non-notable. - Liberatore(T) 15:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L.E.M.U.R.[edit]

Was tagged with a WP:PROD tag, but the article does assert notability of the organization (made the cover of the scientific journal Electric Space Craft" - is that a significant journal? I don't know). No opinion here, throwing it to the wisdom of the AFD community. Stormie 22:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advert. Stifle 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nonsense, advert, not notable, and the journal ref isn't notable either. I would have let the PROD run out, but if it's AFDed now then just speedy it. Georgewilliamherbert 05:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one university library in the world subscribes to the journal "Electric Spacecraft." Delete as nonnotable. Thatcher131 15:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 16:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Dobbs[edit]

Tagged as db-bio but notability is asserted. Alleged sex offender, no other claim to notability. Dodgy ground. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This person is an alleged child sex offender, and as such he is innocent until proven guilty. What purpose does spreading his name serve, other than blackening it by association? There are no wider issues or significance, or other cause for notability, in this article. It is just hearsay at present, and could be seen as an attack page (A6?). Dodgy ground indeed, but in my opinion a delete. Sliggy 00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - I don't think that an arrest establishes notability. {{db-bio}} should apply. —ERcheck @ 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not Wikinews. Stifle 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing so notable about this case that it'd deserve its own article. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Adrian Lamo and Sliggy. -- Kjkolb 03:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn paedophile.Blnguyen 04:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio. --Terence Ong 05:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, committing a crime does not automatically make you notable. -- Mithent 18:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm the one who tagged this for speedy delete. I didn't see anything in there that even asserted notability; it merely said he was arrested and charged with a sex offense. Sad to say, there are hundreds if not thousands of other cases like this, and nothing is said in the article that would make this particular defendant notable. (Coincidentally, this alleged crime occurred in my neighborhood, so it might be notable to me, but not to Wikipedia readers in general.) --Russ Blau (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C4sms[edit]

Advertising, Non notable Chuck 266 23:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - advertising. —ERcheck @ 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn advert. Blnguyen 04:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sho (letter)[edit]

  • Is this a made-up Greek letter?? Please delete unless someone can find evidence outside Wikipedia of this letter. Georgia guy 23:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Letter exists. I've added comments to the article's talk page. One reference to show existence: *Greek and Coptic Range: 0370–03FF, from the Software Engineering Laboratory, National Technical University of Athens. (pdf file) As far as existence - seals it for me that a Greek university includes sho in their list of letters. A quick google search on <sho Greek letter> indicates that there are references to the Bactrian language usage; I'd like to see a language expert (the article creator) add appropriate references. —ERcheck @ 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. [41] has examples of its usage. --Ptcamn 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ERCheck Ruby 01:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 01:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per ERcheck. Good research. -- Kjkolb 03:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ERcheck. --Terence Ong 05:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ERcheck, Talk:Sho (letter). -- Krash (Talk) 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asonta Ellison[edit]

Tagged as db-bio, but notability is asserted. Er, I think. In as much as I can make head or tail of the article, anyway. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as non-notable. Absolutely not ghits [42], not in Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, seems like some sort of bible-thumping hoax as well. Makemi 23:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Kappa 23:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is asserted but not verifiable. Most of the article contains irrelevant nonsense about Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Bill Clinton. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kappa. Stifle 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn and unverifiable. Blnguyen 04:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blnguyen. --Terence Ong 05:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notable people tend to have more than zero mentions on Google. -- Mithent 18:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OPOV[edit]

This recently added article is for a relatively obscure and undefined neologism/initialism. While there are some 16K online instances of the term, they refer to "open" or "omniscient point of view", not "obsessive", "One Person, One Vote", et al. The case for retrofitting this article into a dab is, similarly, questionable. Of course: this, in and of itself, might be an OPOV ... no matter which way you skin this cat. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- NN, neologism, probably comes under WP:NPA as well. Haikupoet 02:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, many possible reasons, including dicdef, lack of context, non-notable/unstable neologism, protologism, etc. Stifle 11:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable neologism; whole phrase has only 86 Google matches and none also contain the abbreviation. -- Mithent 18:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. dbtfztalk 06:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_14&oldid=1080932799"