🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_24
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 23 January 25 >

Purge server cache

January 24

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4000 (band)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdijah

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 17:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bied

[edit]

Non-notable bio. The author Walsh415bostoncollege has reposted this after it was userfied so I will allow him an AfD. -- RHaworth 23:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 05:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hyler

[edit]

Rather unremarkable privateer. WP:BIO Stifle 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, vanity, nn-bio Madchester 06:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam McCluskey

[edit]

This sports writer is probably not notable. Only 18 search results outside of Wikipedia for Adam McCluskey +rugby. No other articles link to this, it has only been edited by 2 users, and not since 13 January 2006. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 13:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, default action is keep. Babajobu 10:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Ghabel

[edit]

This theologist is probably not notable. Only 25 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Ahmad Ghabel". No other articles link to this, it has only been edited by 2 users, and not since 24 December 2005. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 14:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Anees

[edit]

This software title is probably not notable. Only 29 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Al Anees". No other articles link to this, it has only been edited by 4 users, and not since 10 November 2005. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 14:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I might add that the search results do not appear to pertain to the software. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:30, Jan. 24, 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Staffeld Madsen

[edit]

This cardiologist is probably not notable. Only 4 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Alfred Staffeld Madsen". No other articles link to this, it has only been edited by 3 users, and not since 19 November 2005. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 15:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Hurricane Center

[edit]

This online forum is probably not notable. Only 10 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Amateur Hurricane Center". For the 1 external link provided, the Alexa traffic ranking is 129,718... and a total of 0 sites link to it, including Wikipedia and its mirrors. No other articles link to this, it has only been edited by 1 user, and not since 20 January 2006. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 15:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 15:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This amateur article reviewer says delete Ruby 20:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since in my estimation there is no such thing as an amateur hurricane, this article should be deleted. Denni ☯ 01:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. incog 00:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Timecop 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything Besides Delete - First of all, the argument for deletion is not very convincing, as some of the information is not correct. I have never even heard of this "Alexa" traffic ranking. Even if it is a reputable source of information, the current time of year does not accurately represent the site's true traffic standpoint (it is currently not hurricane season, thus making the visitation to the website low). Second, there is an incomprehensible amount of articles on Wikipedia that have only been edited by one user and have not been deleted. And the fact that the article hasn't been edited in the last five days is not pertinent to this deletion at all. Who cares? I'm sure there are millions of articles that haven't even been edited in weeks or even months. Third, there is criteria met under the WP:WEB category. There are links to this site from "significant" weather sites such as Weather Underground (wunderground.com). Fourth, the title does not mean a center that tracks amateur hurricanes - it is a hurricane center run by amateur meteorologists. I am the author by the way, and just about every article that I have written has either been put up for deletion and called a drug dream or rudely edited from a well thought out, comprehensive article into someone else's trashy insult-of-an-article work without even crediting the original author. I am fed up with Wikipedia! Schlockading 01:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This site is notable-can be found on several other websites...31 Yahoo! search results, 14 Google search results. Also is a reliable source of info for hurricane people like us. Hurricane_guy
  • Keep Dont know why, just keep it because AHC is reliable - haev looked at site! Plorstonslinge 18:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amie Ward

[edit]

This musician is probably not notable. Only 8 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Amie Ward" musician. No other articles link to this, it has only been edited by 3 users, and not since 18 January 2006. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 15:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE by community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 05:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applian Technologies Inc.

[edit]

Blatant advertising, "a great way to download music", for example. Almost every other word is an external link to an Applian product site, no internal links whatsoever. Page is author's only contribution, aside from same content on user page. Delete. AbsoluteFlatness 04:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward silence

[edit]

Somewhere between original research, dictdef, and a joke (the example cited sounds like an inside joke between the author and the other sole editor). OhnoitsJamieTalk 18:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baby and brother

[edit]

Sounds like hogwash, but even if it's true, it's a defunct public access show. Even current public access shows are not encyclopedic. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon and eggs

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

The result of the debate was KEEP by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 05:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Merthyr

[edit]

No notability or relevance. Baroncruft. Stifle 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as near-nonsense and as link spam. - Lucky 6.9 17:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley California Real Estate

[edit]

Realtor advertising MNewnham 16:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Karpovich

[edit]

Looks like vanity/linkspam to me. Isn't everyone and thier brother CEO of some tiny company? -R. fiend 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, superfluous with List of Soul Train episodes. --Deathphoenix 15:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Withers/ Al Green/ Viola Wills

[edit]

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncy Balls (slang)

[edit]

The article describes what it itself admits to be a neologism. The entire article boils down to "Bouncy Balls is another name for anal sex.". At best, this would be a redirect, and anal sex would either mention the alternative names that it is known by or link to a WikiSaurus entry for that purpose. But after a modicum of research I can find no evidence that this is another name for anal sex. The article cites no sources, and everything that I can turn up turns out to be about ordinary balls, that bounce. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang, in any case. Uncle G 16:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos E. Nemer

[edit]

Relevance has yet to be explained and the article has existed for a month and a half. Possibly a vanity article (creating user has no user page and no other contributions, original text was unformatted, etc) but most definitely non-notable. goatasaur 01:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance has already been explained, Prof. Carlos Nemer´s work is peer reviewed and his importance can be measured by his influence in brazilian academic environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.179.227.158 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. There is no case made here for his notability beyond that of an average academic. No citations, no references, no lists of published works, etc. Crunch 01:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Zsinj 01:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD A7 and subject already deleted according to the deletion policy (previous afd) --Muchness 01:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Delete, article does not establish notability; possible speedy as repost of deleted content / CSD G4. --Muchness 05:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also check Carlos Nemer, which had 243 edits, almost all of them by the same user. The contributors who make repeated edits to these articles have no other contributions, save inserting "Carlos Nemer" into other Wikipedia articles. The Carlos Nemer article was deleted three times. I would have deleted this one outright if I'd known. Are these contributors all the same person? The same block of text is copied, then formatted repeatedly, each time the article is resurrected. -- goatasaur 01:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - bio of prof. with no outstanding contributions. Ruby 01:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It´s summer time in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, relax people, give the article some time, you´ll never regret that. Prof. Nemer is a great professional he must be remembered forever.
"Beauty is in the heart of the beloved woman but the truth is in the hands of the man that works". Carlos Vieira; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.179.227.158 (talk • contribs)
Sorry for the confusion, I've corrected my vote. --Muchness 05:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. Relisting unnecessary since it seemed a bunch of users voted "redirect (or merge) all" without registering their votes to each individual AfD. --Deathphoenix 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chairmen of the Board/ Rufus Thomas/ Laura Lee

[edit]

Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 15:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. Relisting unnecessary because it seems that a bunch of users voted "redirect (or merge) all" without listing their votes on each individual AfD. --Deathphoenix 15:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Wright & the Watts 103rd Street Band/ Carla Thomas/ General Crook

[edit]

Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 15:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsense/hoax - Lucky 6.9 17:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hobson

[edit]

Supposed major character in a series of books that don't have their own article. Searching for "Chris Hobson" +nevonia reveals 4 results, 3 of which are this article or mirrors. The fourth is a useless list of graduates for the class of 2006 for Franklin and Marshall. Searching on Amazon.com for "nevonia" reveals only a single book on student life at Franklin and Marshall, while searching on the book in which he was supposedly introduced, "The Fifteen Year Old Mad Scientist", yields 0 results. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. The article is Christianpayne's only contribution, and I will therefore not userfy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Payne

[edit]

Vanity page written in third person MNewnham 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was that I'm not qualified to euthanize anyone, but I can delete this article. - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cocksmith

[edit]

Non-notable term. A Google search reveals only two hits, both as slang terms in online dictionaries. No other references either on regular websites or in media. Delete Atrian 05:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collectica

[edit]

NN website not yet open for business MNewnham 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, but do not rename to Compass (Qibla) because this article also mentions Qiblih. --Deathphoenix 15:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compass (religion)

[edit]

Delete. Having been convinced to actually buy one of these compasses, I can say that they don't really do what one would infer from reading about them. They don't actually point to the qiblih, they point to magnetic north like any other compass. The buyer is merely given a list of major cities and the corresponding degree heading by which to turn, so there's really no cool technology at work. The design is pretty flimsy as well - just lightweight, easily cracked or scratched plastic. A little research reveals both compasses to be made by the Silva company in Sweden. Being that: 1) the product description is a bit disingenuous, 2) I don't think there's really enough information here to justify a full article in its own right, and 3) this article is essentially an (unintentional, I'm sure) advertisement for one company, I move for article deletion. Keldan 08:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A deletion decision should not be based on what is there in the article, but what could be there, because each stub is "an acorn from which mighty trees can grow." The subject is clearly notable: millions of people own these things. Can a worthwhile article be written about it? Well, I'd say that what you've just written is interesting in itself. I'd prefer to keep it around for a while. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt very seriously if "millions of people own these things". I'd be surprised if it were over 200 - the product is fairly new. All the same, I see your reasoning, and appreciate your input. I don't mind keeping it around for awhile (I'm certainly not trying to instigate some speedy deletion here), though I think I'll let the nomination for deletion stand. I also think I'll hop over to the article itself and NPOV some of that stuff from the AfD page, since out of the AfD page and in an article context it's rather caustic. Keldan 13:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Keldan has written may be interesting, but it needs to be verifiable by readers who do not own these products in order to become part of an article. Uncle G 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither Googles well for a 'clearly notable' subject. "Kalimát Presentations" and "Kalimat Presentations" turn up one Google hit between them that isn't their own site. [5] [6] Silva is more difficult to search for. 'silva Muslim compass' with no ""s turns up lots of hits, as would be expected, but no relevant ones are immediately apparent [7]. A more specific 'silva Muslim compass qiblih -wikipedia' turns up none at all except a couple of straggling Wikipedia mirrors [8]. So no reliable sources. Given that these are just ordinary compasses with a piece of paper attached, there's no reason to mention them in Wikipedia. --Malthusian (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly how are these anything other than ordinary magnetic compasses, for which we already have an article? Upon what basis was this forked off compass? Uncle G 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the nomination very unsatisfactory; just because the nominator doesn't like this particular product itself isn't a good reason to delete an article about a class of historically interesting instruments. This is certainly not a new idea; I bought one (much nicer than the Silva one!) a decade ago, and they have been around for centuries (see [9] [10] [11]. Although they function in the same way as a magnetic compass, they are more sophisticated (and elegant) than that sounds; they often have at least one additional pointer, inscriptions indicating major cities around the world, and tend toward the very ornate. A fine article could be written about these instruments (but this is not it). Keep, expand, and rename to Qibla compass. bikeable (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per above --Doc ask? 18:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was ready to vote "delete" per the nominator and earlier votes, then Bikeable went and threw Reliable sources at us. Move to Qibla compass and expand per Bikeable. Barno 23:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The basis of this article is tenuous at best. Yes, such devices exist but they by my means deserve an article of their own. Make special mentions of them in appropriate articles if you will, but polluting the namespace with this kind of insipid drivel is inexcusable. --Agamemnon2 06:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but and do not rename as the page serves two different religions, Islam with the Qibla and the Baha'i Faith with the Qiblih. Qibla Compass would only refer to the Qibla. -- Jeff3000 04:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked Zebratry

[edit]

Crooked Zebratry is a slang phrase referring to referees in American professional football that routinely make bad or questionable decisions. Often, it is seen as a case of bias or, less frequently, chronic incompetence. It usually refers to an entire referee staff as opposed to a specific individual, though it can refer to either. The reference to zebras is due to the referees' distinct black-and-white outfits.

An example would be an NFL Playoff Game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Indianapolis Colts on Sunday, January 15. 2006. Troy Polamalu clearly intercepted a Peyton Manning pass in the waning mintues of the 4th quarter. What would have been a game-ending play was overturned and ruled an incomplete pass. Later the NFL addmited it was an incorrect call and apologized

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddle buddy

[edit]

This is a term and should be in the wiktionary. Ginar 02:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. However, since most keeps were dependent on expanding an article that apparently can't be expanded, I have no objections to a re-AfD in the near future. --Deathphoenix 15:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy’s girl

[edit]

colloquialism, not a sociological term, best left in the wiktionary Ginar 02:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted - the authors are conducting a linkspam campaign across Wikipedia, and are obviously just gaming the system. Buhbye. FCYTravis 01:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel M. Maggin

[edit]

I'll allow the article to speak for itself: "self-proclaimed World Renowned Fork Artist." Has a weak borderline claim of notability in that he won something called the It's Academic Superbowl, but other than that, it's your garden-variety non-notable bio. FCYTravis 00:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fork this article and the horse it rode in on. Ruby 01:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Winning something in a small area does not make you notable; in the SFBA, it's called Quiz Kids, and if someone asserted notability by that... well, let's say most of the Bay Area would know or care about the subject, much less the world. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 01:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity.Blnguyen 01:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This article is not even close to being notable. Dr. Cash 03:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This ain't no résumé shop.--cjllw | TALK 03:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Dbtfz 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:33Z
  • Delete Non-notable biography. Can another 'fork artist' step forward to defend this man? I thought not.  (aeropagitica)  07:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a personal page; Google produces only 9 non-redundant pages.
  • Delete as vanity, nn bio. --Terence Ong 11:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-bio or, as the man himself would probably say, "fork off!". Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 11:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —This user has left wikipedia 12:18 2006-01-24
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this POV fork!!! What? Oh, sorry, never mind.  :-) MCB 01:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE! let's not be elitists here. this is an encyclopedia. Maggin has accomplished a great amount in a short time, in a variety of fields. this should stay. recap: 1) Headed the #1 newspaper in the country; 2) Won the Championship of the Longest running tv quiz show in the world (according to guinness records) and is a somewhat successful artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmmx3 (talk • contribs) 27 January 2006
    • Comment. User:Dmmx3, you might have divulged when voting that 'twas you who created this article, and indeed are quite likely to be Daniel himself- do you deny? At least I gather so, given the equal propensity for hyperbole. For starters, the reference to "Headed the #1 newspaper in the country" is presumably to the Rockville High School (Maryland) student paper- which does seem to at least have been been the National Winner in the "High School publications" category of the 2005 Student Publishing Awards. However, as per your/Daniel's article this was several years after your/Daniel's editorship: the actual editors who won the award could understandably feel a little peeved at this attempt to claim credit. As you note, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, and not some substitute for some (ex-)students' noticeboard. Ring-in anon votes like the one below are unlikely to help, either.--cjllw | TALK 03:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Did maggin head the newspaper? yes. is the newspaper #1 in the country? yes. that said, i understand your semantical point. the phrasing could be confusing. so edit anything you see as untrue/misleading. i dont understand why one would want to delete because of that. when maggin headed the paper it did not compete in the national competition. however it did compete within the state and was not only number one, but receved 98.5 out of 100, the highest score ever for a publication. maggin also won various specific awards that could be included here including awards for layout, news article writing, and headline writing. ill see if this info can be fuond online and include a link.
  • KEEP I purchased one of Daniel's pieces at an art gallery in Atlanta. It currently is the centerpiece of my living room. This man is a true talent, and a heavy hitter in the folk art world. 02:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)~ Dean Kang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.14.172 (talk • contribs) 27 January 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-band. Mushroom 06:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Das Duale System

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear lady

[edit]

this is a colloquial term. suitable for the dictionary Ginar 02:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Fanning

[edit]

NN author and journalist. Books appear to be self-published. Fails WP:BIO. Delete Kusma (討論) 03:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article for writers in the Birr area: he is a notable writer. While the books are self published, they sold well and he got good exposure locally.

Writes extensivly in the local media, through his and other papers, and published the "Sliabh Bloom" periodical every 4 months.

Has certainly done enough for Birr to be included. Maybe merge with the main Birr article?

Ojis 13:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detva Servis

[edit]

On grounds of non notable company. 187 Google hits. ComputerJoe 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup. --Deathphoenix 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diocesan Synod

[edit]

This article, while I can see it having a use, is at the moment a total mess and a vehicle for the viewpoints of the user who wrote it, User:Aidan Work, who is now indefinately blocked. A quick read of the article shows that it amounts to little more than what he personally proposes in relation to it. The article is also majorly malformatted. --Kiand 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now its not. Are you volunteering to clean it up? Deleting it will let someone actually do a clean start without having personal cruft in its history. --Kiand 22:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete as patent nonsense per CSD-06. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 22:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-28 00:20Z

DJ Sharkey

[edit]

Biography of a DJ. Claim to notability as a co-founder of "React Records" (redlink). External link is a 404. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 08:47Z

Delete non notable. --Oscarthecat 11:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination for deletion on the condition that Alkivar et al add this notability information to the article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 22:40Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 The Simpsons catch phrases. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a cow

[edit]

not encyclopedic The Simpsons trivia . delete Melaen 11:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no point having an article for each of Bart's witticisms. --Oscarthecat 11:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Robin Johnson 12:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will change my vote to Redirect to The Simpsons catch phrases as per above. James084 14:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dronsfield

[edit]

This was tagged for speedy deletion as a bio that doesn't assert notability (WP:CSD#A7). I don't agree with that, so I'm listing it here at AfD.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch oven (slang)

[edit]

This is a poor page and I can find no evidence to back up such usage. It also doesn't saw where it is supposedly a slang term from. Even if it does exist I don't think it's notable enough. Ben W Bell 10:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not a particularly savory subject, I am a "knowledge junkie", and this was something I'd never heard of before. It was presented, I thought, as delicately as possible, given the subject matter. I'm not in favor of restricting pure information, honestly presented. I say leave it in.

  • Leave it in. I've heard it (I'm Irish), Dutch Oven is also slang, for a cannabis smoking session in a tent.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EggBlog

[edit]

Vanity, non-notable: brand new blogging software project, and the developer wrote the article explicitly for SEO reasons, see [13] rodii 21:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Sorry, not brand new.[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth James

[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Tv316 as patent nonsense, which it isn't, but I judging by the comment he left on the talk page (copied below), I think he means complete bollocks. howcheng {chat} 01:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 15:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering tuitions chennai

[edit]

Blatant advertisement for a non-notable program. OhnoitsJamieTalk 16:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not so much concerned about its non-notability (I don't know anything about engineering programs in India) as about its advertisement point of view. Challenge the author to rewrite it according to NPOV; if that can't be done, merge or (more likely) delete. -- 68.36.214.139 17:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC) (oops, that was me -- MatthewDBA 17:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment There are a lot of articles that promotes their engineering colleges so why not have an entry for engineering tuitions. I plan to include other engineering tuitions links as well soon. There are a lot of students who desperately need guidance on many engineering subjects. I am not doing anything unique here.--Justayogi 17:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think Wikipedia is the appropriate place for a guide/collection of links on engineering tuition programs. There are plenty of articles written about notable individual engineering topics. OhnoitsJamieTalk 18:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Test (student assessment). --Deathphoenix 15:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Constructed Respose

[edit]

poor dicdef of term that probably doesnt meet wiktinary criteria. Also note misspelled article name.


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FanboyPlanet.com

[edit]

Article for a website that is little more than spam/vanity. —Cleared as filed. 22:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Day

[edit]

Delete as unverifiable and probable hoax. All three 'cover art' images uploaded by original author of this page. See AfD discussion on related Amie Ward. Lockley 19:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to facial recognition system. --Deathphoenix 15:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fisherface

[edit]

Delete. Topic belongs in a specialist journal, not a general encyclopedia. Previous information has already been removed as a copyvio; pointless to replace it when generic information on facial recognition software will suffice. Stretch 06:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fomalhaut (Fallen Angel)

[edit]

Delete Stub that has no pages linked to it, and has no sources. It is conjecture.

Please remember to be civil and assume good faith. Dominick (TALK) 13:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Mr. Shankly Butcher (album)

[edit]

This is a load of nonsense. No evidence anywhere on the internet, The Decemberists would never title an album thus (so badly or copying The Smiths so obviously), forums on official website deny this absolutely. I've no idea how anyone knows what titles will be on the album given that it's not even set to be recorded until April. Either a hoax or just wrong information. Delete Barbara Osgood 15:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. Merge not necessary, as other episodes don't have additional information. The votes here seem to indicate that similar episodes should be redirect. In the future, please vote on all individual AfDs no matter how similar, as I can't see all the other AfDs when closing individual ones. --Deathphoenix 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Distinction/ Clarence Carter

[edit]

Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Strong atheism. There seems to be some usage of this term, but mainly in humourous web pages. Any further attempts to recreate the previous content, however, should be reverted immediately. --Deathphoenix 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete, upon further discussion. --Deathphoenix 17:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentalist atheist

[edit]

I would say this is a neologism. It gets 354 unique Google hits although a significant proportion of those argue that it is a contradiction in terms. The page as it stands reads as a POV criticism of Atheism and I suspect it would always do so. I nearly speedied this under CSD A6 but given that it makes a serious case thought it should be brought here. David | Talk 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Atheists tend to have their own POV slant on every article on Wiki, its time someone gave the fuckers like Carlin a taste of their own medicine, if they want to generalize, then they will get it right back at them tenfold. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreekWarrior (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. Especially after researching the article's creator (User:GreekWarrior) edit history and other comments here, I suspect this article is complete bollocks. Peyna 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wouldn't say it's a neologism or complete bollocks; anti-atheists (such as our unsigned friend above) use it to describe particularly strident pro-atheist activists. While the phrase itself is semi-notable, in the respect that people actually use it, the behavior it describes is not. Powers 20:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - but don't just keep either. This phrase is in use, and disparagingly describes certain forms of Strong atheism. Whether it is an accurate description is of course POV, but we should record the use, not the accuracy. I'd suggest either a merge to Fundamentalism (and let the fact that the term has been used of atheists be noted), or a simple redirect to Strong atheism. --Doc ask? 20:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is fundamentally POV, which violates WP:NPOV. Ascribing hatred as a characteristic of a version of Atheism demonstrates more about the article's creator than about the nominative subject of said article. If Atheism derrives from an emotional reaction of a theistic stance then this should be demonstrated with the appropriate references and citations. As it happens, Atheism arises from reasoning about both physical and metaphysical concepts, both of which are amply demonstrated in Richard Dawkins' work, contrary to the POV expressed by the article's creator.  (aeropagitica)  21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And your user-page, full of the huffing and puffing and delusions of grandeur one would expect from an Atheist (assumed to be more creative - for example), is a typical example of the Atheistic arrogance from which you suffer, it's ok for you to generalize, but God forbid when a Christian does it, or any Theist for that matter. Atheism must be defeated head on, I would be glad to meet you in battle and slay you myself, you are nothing but filth to me, believe me, you are like dirt to me, you must be wiped out with aggression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.83.215 (talk • contribs)
LOL —simpatico hi 07:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delete per nom --rogerd 03:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 05:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff shoesmith

[edit]

Non-notable as it stands. Oscarthecat 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to List of Soul Train episodes to be consistent with other similar AfDs for similar episodes. --Deathphoenix 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Knight & the Pips/ Eddie Kendricks/ The Honey Cone/ Bobby Hutton

[edit]

Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Westboro Baptist Church. --Deathphoenix 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godhatesamerica.com

[edit]

Non-notable website. This is one of a number of lesser known websites put out by the Westboro Baptist Church (the godhatesfags.com people). There is already a lengthy article for Westboro_Baptist_Church, no need for this one. As there is no significant content here which isn't already on the main Westboro_Baptist_Church page, might as well delete rather than merge this. Xyzzyplugh 00:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hellarity

[edit]

Unverified residence of some sort. 133 Google hits.-- Perfecto 02:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Deathphoenix 20:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of zoology, post-Darwin

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was This is an anachronism. The content has some historical interest but it is not a contemporary review of value.. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm new to this process, but I nominated this article as it seemed to me to be an obvious case of an article that would bring Wikipedia into disrepute if read by any serious seeker of information, and which seemed incapable of salvation without starting wholly afresh. I nominated this article for deletion after spending some time trying to edit it constructively; at first I thought maybe it could be cleaned up, but I changed my mind after trying. The problems with it as I see it are multiple. As a review of the "History of zoology post Darwin", it stops at about 1910, it only addresses a single narrow issue (and from a rather strange personal perspective), and it does so in terms so outdated that the discussion is of mere historical curiosity. Anyone reading for any factual content would be very seriously misled. I think that an article on this topic is a fine idea, but I do not think it is possible to use this text as a starting point for an article of any contemporary credibility. I have no idea why you've got people transcribing science articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911, this seems crazy to me. Gleng 10:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 04:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Trouser

[edit]

Nonsense story, presumably vandalism (and candidate for a speedy) but I put it on ordinary AFD nontheless. -- Egil 23:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • You people are so snobby it's unbelievable. Yeah it's not a very important page and by all means delete it, although there are many pages that are equally as rubbish. I object to it being called 'vandalism' as it is anything but. I would merge it somewhere in the Neighbours page. If you delete it I'll just make another one somewhere! Cls14 00:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humpty

[edit]

This article describes a neologism. A google for the "Humpty Awards" mentioned in the article failed to generate meaningful hits. Delete. Sliggy 17:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Would Set Myself On Fire For You

[edit]

Not notable.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IGadget

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackarandah Productions

[edit]

Non-notable company, violates WP:CORP  (aeropagitica)  07:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobo Ríos

[edit]

non notable

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob's Shadow

[edit]

Fictional book. I like Deus Ex, but this is unneccessary. Drat (Talk) 08:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Scott Richardson

[edit]

Useless article. Very little information. Barely worth reading. Only information is that a complaint was filed against him Imstillhere 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pah, probably every city has at least one whackjob who's planned to kill the PM or equivalent at one time or another. Planning does not equal intent. --Agamemnon2 06:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trubunal did not hear evidence of any plan to assassinate the prime minister. Close associate to Richard Warman, Randy Richmond wrote a misleading article with a false title. Imstillhere 15:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is a waste of time and web space to flatter every individual on the far-right with a Wiki definition. Dogmatic
  • Keep For the love of Pete! I'M NOT RICHARD WARMAN!!!!! In any event while this individual might not warrant a huge entry he is notable enough to have a small one. AnnieHall 03:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- keep - Richardson was a major figure in the Canadian neo-Nazi movement during his tenure - was charged with numerous criminal offences as a result of material that appeared on the CECT website - subject of a human rights complaint and the decision can be added (or a link) once it comes out (does anyone know if it's out yet?)

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn, keep. Punkmorten 19:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.B. Schneewind

[edit]

A professor. Not notable. Every single professor with PhD has some publications. That does not make them notable. Also, it was created by an anon who created a whole bunch of articles on Johns Hopkins University faculty. All(?) of them were copyvios from university website [19], but this one got changed, so it does not qualify for copyvio.

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

The result of the debate was 'Delete, nn-bio. Madchester 06:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica_Dunton

[edit]

This looks like a fairly transparent "vanity" case. Bardencj 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Antandrus —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 11:11Z

Jim and the Teenage Kickass

[edit]

can anyone verify? I found this on a strangecategory where 2 articles seemed like hoax/vandalism-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete W.marsh 04:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny_apleseed

[edit]

Speedy Delete: Patent nonsense Flakeloaf 04:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as per CSD G4. Mushroom 11:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jokebook:Lightbulb:Occupational

[edit]

Surely just putting a "Jokebook:" in front of the title doesn't change the fact that it was deiced to remove such jokes from wikipedia? Am I missing something? -R. fiend 17:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph And Rosie

[edit]

Obvious hoax, looks like a series of home movies some kid did and pretending it's a TV show. A Google search for '"Joseph And Rosie" ITV1' [20] reveals 2 results, both Wikipedia. The 'official site' (since removed from the article) clearly isn't, as it's a Bravehost one [21]. Joseph Silcock was speedy deleted in December. Also listing List of Joseph And Rosie episodes for the same reasons, and it looks suspiciously like List of Chucklevision episodes. BillyH 07:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was moot. The article was speedy-deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Beyer Films

[edit]

Vanity. Even if we ignore the tone of this article, I don't think there's enough substance left to justify its existence.

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

The result of the debate was Delete., per WP:NOT Madchester 06:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2005 National Scout Jamboree Council Patches

[edit]

This article is scoutcruft; more specifically it's a listing of poorly-scanned special edition boy scout council patches made for a certain event. This is not notable and unencyclopedic. Also, WP:NOT for collections of photographs or media files. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. Babajobu 16:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian Air Force aircraft

[edit]

listcruft, incomplete. A better list is already embedded in the main Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force article. Hirudo 01:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 20:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of redundant expressions

[edit]

Delete. The inclusion of almost any expression on this list is open to dispute, either about whether or not it is really redundant, or whether or not it is a notably used expression, or both. There is no possibility of this page becoming adequately sourced, authoritative or encyclopedic. I don't see how it can be saved within Wikipedia. I acknowledge there may be other lists about which the same could be said, which I haven't noticed yet. Delete. Zargulon 10:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure what you mean.. do you really think that only articles which violate specific Wikipedia policies may be deleted? In fact, specific policy violations can often be fixed without deleting articles. If you think this article can be fixed without deletion, maybe you should try it. I genuinely wish you the best of luck and hope you don't waste too much time. Zargulon 13:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are more. "It's high time." That's different than "it's time." It's a different nuance. It's like saying "It's about time!" And, "golden wedding anniversary" is different than "golden anniversary." The former is just the 50th anniversary of a wedding. The latter is the 50th anniversary of anything, I believe. See how interpretations can vary? Crunch 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course "12 noon" is redundant. Can noon be any hour other than 12? Denni ☯ 01:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but 12 can. Gosh. Crunch 01:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which means that "noon" suffices and "12 noon" is a redundant expression. --Vizcarra 03:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Noon has an alternative meaning of the time when the sun is highest in the sky. "12" disambiguates. Zargulon 10:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's arguments like this that show this is an essay and not an encyclopedia article. Robin Johnson 10:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's arguments like this that suggest that articles like this are desperately needed to educate and to inform. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but not in wikipedia. Zargulon 12:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a very useful list and I hope it stays public, but this is simply not what Wikipedia is for, unless every one of those expressions is notable for being a redundant expression, and discussed as such a citable reputable source somewhere. Robin Johnson 14:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Ghost in the Shell. --Deathphoenix 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium Flower

[edit]

Delete. Unencyclopedic; song lyrics that are not significant enough to require it's own article. Eluchil 09:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I am aware of the song and its significance to fans of Ghost in the Shell I don't think its important enough. Plus when you consider the copyright implications of song lyrics and the trouble they are causing for many sites I think it should go. Ben W Bell 10:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. Robin Johnson 10:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to List of Soul Train episodes, users voted "redirect (or merge) all" without registering their votes to each individual AfD. --Deathphoenix 21:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Rawls/ The 100 Proof/ The Emotions

[edit]

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


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). Physchim62 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malady

[edit]

Not notable, one author.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. David | Talk 23:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Yardley

[edit]

Unverifiable [22]. - Liberatore(T) 16:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. Users voted "redirect (or merge) all without listing their votes on each individual AfDs. --Deathphoenix 21:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martha & the Vandellas/ The Intruders/ G.C. Cameron

[edit]

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Deathphoenix 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mater Dei High School (Evansville)

[edit]

This page is about a high school with 613 people in it, a fairly small school. It also has no listed significant alumni or any other information that makes it worth noting. Stellis 20:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Babajobu 15:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metafunction

[edit]

already on wikictionary: delete. Melaen 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Userfy to User:Michaeldsherman. --Deathphoenix 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Sherman

[edit]

Vanity page, the only contribution of User:Michaeldsherman. Assertion of notability is that he will publish a book. Fails WP:BIO. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, but since there are more merge votes than keep votes (I count 9d, 7m, 2k), this defaults to merge and redirect to Michael Jackson. --Deathphoenix

Michael Jackson (personal life)

[edit]

Delete, or at the very least, merge any useful content and redirect. For the second time, an effort has been made to segregate all details of Jackson's personal life into a separate article, on the pretext of "shortening" the main article. The last time it was tried, this idea was shot down unanimously. The Michael Jackson article, before I reverted it, was little more than a laundry list of Jackson's musical accomplishments with a few personal details thrown in. The only indication that this fork existed was a small notice at the top of the article. Refactoring the content in this way is simply not appropriate for a biographical encyclopedia article. android79 04:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have split off Michael Jackson home, recreation, friends, charity.--Patrick 11:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like this new split even less. :( —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-30 11:46Z
  • Redirect back to main article. I don't see the need for a merge, as the content originated in Michael Jackson (its all either there, or in history). Michael Jackson in theory needs to be broken out, but the problem is, that whenever there are spin-off articles, people insist on writing in excessive detail about it in the main article. I suggest 80% of what's normally in Michael Jackson (which changes day-to-day) is better placed in some sub-article (such as the ones for the individual controversies, trials, albums, individual songs, individual videos, every song he ever wrote, his former pet, his house, his associates, etc.......). Another spin-off won't fix it. --Rob 10:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. For similiar reasons Patrick gave. The Michael Jackson is too long, and it has been shortened. I think having a main article that explains Michael Jackson's music career and personal life, and then a sub-article that explains his personal life in more detail, and album pages for every album so to explain them in more detail, is a great idea. We need to keep the main article at an appropriate length, and putting in too much information about controversies will only make it longer. Over time we can improve both articles and in particular, improve the main article so there's an even amount of music career and personal life. This could work out really well if you give it a chance. Street walker 11:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Two articles on Michael Jackson are not necessary. Just clean up the whole thing. Crunch 13:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This only the POV taken from the main article. —This user has left wikipedia 16:13 2006-01-24
  • Delete per nom; attempt to circumvent previous consensus. OhnoitsJamieTalk 21:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and revert back the identical info on Michael Jackson. Again, his "personal life" should be dealt with on his "personal article". — TheKMantalk 02:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Crunch. --Zsinj 03:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge anything new and usefull put in here. POV fork.--Sean|Black 04:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Controversy of Michael Jackson, per discussion on Michael Jackson talk page. No need to have this article when the grand scheme of things is to put music career and personal life in the main article but have it flow like a chronological biography. Street walker 06:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content back, move to eg. Talk:Michael Jackson/history1, and delete the redirect that this creates. A history merge is not appropriate but the history still needs to be preserved - this will do it. Alphax τεχ 06:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a POV fork. Merge/move/delete per Alphax. Stifle 14:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main article is long enough as it is. A merge would be inapprioprate --161.74.11.24 19:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per crunch. - Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs 13:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A blatant and unacceptable POV fork. Merge and redirect back to Michael Jackson and admins may want to consider checking if User:Patrick and User:Street walker are the same person. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are not the same person. I created the page to recover info that was partly deleted, partly somewhat hidden between music info, by Street walker. Thus my intention is opposite to what you seem to assume.--Patrick 11:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL, we are not the same person. I suggested something in the Michael Jackson talk page about merging the personal life with the biographical details. Patrick then acted on it and split the personal life from the main article (after I had merged the personal life stuff with the music career/bio stuff). Also, people saying the personal life stuff is "hidden amongst" the music career stuff, or saying the main article is like a "glorified discography" is really frustrating me. Read the current article and you'll see there is as much (probably more by now) personal stuff as musical stuff in the biography. Alot of work has gone into structuring the main article like a biography and it annoys me that people think myself and the users who helped edit the article like a bio have some POV agenda. I personally think alot of people who edit Michael Jackson also have a POV agenda, but an anti-Jackson one, as they seem to want to remove all musical stuff from the article and just have personal life. Hello? Michael Jackson is a recording artist. There you go, my rant for the day. Street walker 12:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 15:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michaella

[edit]

Google's showing me just 112 hits for "Michaella belly dancer" (without quotes), and many of those are recurring from the same site and many toward the end have nothing to do with her at all. I didn't want to nn-bio this due to the fact that a claim of notability is made about her appearing on television once or twice, but I'm not entirely sure those can be verified or are noteworthy if true. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 15:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Lucky 6.9 as CSD:A7 (biographical article with no claim to notability). Stifle 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike campese

[edit]

Self-promotion/vanity. Violation of Geogre's Law as well. -R. fiend 16:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind children

[edit]

Confused article that is close to a {{nonsense}} tag. Seems utterly non-notable. Stifle 21:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as per CSD G1. Mushroom 11:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modonna

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NanoCAD

[edit]

Delete. This refers to a software application (applet) that was never even completed. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Oscarthecat 11:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post/re-edit

[edit]

Appears to be some sort of stub left over from an editing project. It appears in Category:New York City newspapers, which is how I stumbled upon it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Doesn't qualify for a userfy because this doesn't describe the actual band or person, it describes the music genre. --Deathphoenix 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noodle-rock

[edit]

This appears to be a vanity page created solely to describe El Kermito. Note that the only user to edit this page is Davekermito. The only page that links to it is El Kermito (Halesowen used to until I reverted Davekermito's changes.) Powers 16:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incorrect. Check Ryans gig guide for details (available in all good newsagents). Partly correct however is the fact that El Kermito are one of the more famous exponents of the scene (single hitting no 74 in the Norwegian top 75) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davekermito (talk • contribs) 11:43, 24 January 2006
    • Please remember to sign your talk-page edits with four tildes (~). It helps us keep track of who says what. Also, do check out WP:MUSIC for information on the inclusion of music-related articles. I don't think Noodle-rock meets those criteria. Arguably, neither does El Kermito, but that's a discussion for another time. Powers 16:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thats a matter of opinion. Many would disagree.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.77.34 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 24 January 2006
        • Which is why we're having this vote for deletion. It's used to resolve disagreements. (Adding insults to a user's main and talk pages is generally not as effective, by the way.) Also, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~). Powers 16:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to Davekermito. Ruby 17:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Noodle Rock" gets only 120 unique google hits, some of which are not to uses of the term but to phrases such as "...Noodle. Rock is..." and many of the rest are to blogs or similar sites of limited reliability. The current article cites no sources. Unless reliable sources are cited in the article establishing soem degree of widespread usage or other notability for this term this articel should be delted. El Kermito BTW, was recently deleted as non-notable under WP:CSD criterion A7 (non-notable people or groups). DES (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Davekermito has made a claim of notability (namely its appearance in an industry publication). If true, I think that would remove it from speedy consideration, although not from this VfD. Powers 17:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, I wasn't saying that this page should be speedy deleted -- speedys for non notable items apply only to individuals, or to groups of people such as clubs and bands. See WP:CSD#Articles (criterion A7). I was merely reporting that the formerly linked article on the band El Kermito was deleted -- it seems that I made an editing error and failed to copy that link into my comment above. My apologies -- i have not corrected my remark above. DES (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete imaginary music genres —Wahoofive (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn enough. —simpatico hi 17:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nora reynolds

[edit]

The subject of this article does not have sufficient notoriety to warrant a Wikipedia article. No Google or IMDB hits come up for the cited comedy program. Takeel 19:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odious

[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC; this band has only released a demo and a self-released album. - Liberatore(T) 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Metal and IdleMind, in addition to Odious itself, have all been blanked by User:Bloodyzone, most likely in a fit of frustration over the messages I've left on her talk page (which I SWEAR were civil and encouraging). A sad situation, it seems -- or at least, a sad outcome. Powers 00:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, incorret usage of term, correct term already on Wikitionary Madchester 06:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panty waste

[edit]

I had speedied it but the creator politely asked me to restore it. It's un-encyclopedic, maybe it could be moved to wiktionary. Mushroom 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I fully agree that the redirect is the wrong way round, and felt I should explain myself (as the creator of the redirect). I didn't want to move Panty waste as it is up for deletion here, and since it seems likely it will be deleted, turning the duplicate definition into a redirect seemed the best thing to do (since that will be deleted in due course too). I acknlowedge this article is the wrong spelling, however! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you will never find a better source for Panty Waste matetial than Pickelbarrel

  • comment As the author of of this bit, I have to say I am somewhat hurt with the hostility taken by some(although most have been quite nice) of the other editors here. Pamento thought it would be a hoot to link this page to my home page for an example of panty waste, while Dan stated he wanted it deleted with prejudice(if you have already prejudged the article, should your oppinion even count) both of whom were asked to help me write the article(I guess it was funnier to make fun of my article than to help write an article). But mostly I was shoicked to findAdministrator UncleG making claims that I argued the articles relevance based on it being in a film. I never made this argument and as an administrator(an a man whom I truely truely admire) I would have thought he would have not made the accusation, or at least appologized after realizing that it wasnt the intent of my argument. What I said was that I used the same formula that was used in the zagnut article, telling what the meaning of the word is and then referencing it to a film where people could here the term being used in a film, and also (presumably) see what a person who is considered a panty waste might look like. I was deeply hurt that he never bother to at least appologize for misinterperating me. At any rate I want to at least give the reasons I wrote this article(although it seems at this point that it is unlikely anything I say will change the outcome) so that people will realize I was attempting to make a legitamit article, and while Im sure that the knowing ones will be able to tell me a million different reasons why I was stupid to think this, I wanted to at least make this known. I looked up the term panty waste and found it had 7300 plus entries, that is aproximately seven thousand more entries than the term pantywaist has(about about four hundred fifty). By my resoning I thought that the fact that the vast majority of people refered to the term in this manner it would make the term valid...regardless of weather the knowing ones can prove that NO SUCH TERM EXISTS...to me it seeems that if the vast majority of people THINK the term has meaning, then it therefore DOES have meaning. It seems similar to the case of Emperor Norton WAS the emperor of the United States, at least in the san francisco area, because those in the san fransico area treated him as if he WERE the Emperor of the United States. If a large amount of people Accept that a term exists, I felt that simply the fact that since so many (7300) were using the term, it therefore DID exist. But my friend cenestrad had warned me about such assumptions, stating that while wikipedia has a brain it has no soul, and that regardless of what the average person thinks is correct, The knowing ones will be quick to explain to them that no such term exists has ever existed or ever will exist. It seems as though he was correct, and I shouldn't be suprised by it, but I am a little saddened. I will not vote to keep my article as the KNOWING ONES have already informed me I should have never written it to begin with, but I will offer mya pickle for the knowing ones, or truth in a homespun dressPickelbarrel 20:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a lot of people can't spell, doesn't mean it's worth an encyclopedia entry. Second, to "delete with prejudice" means to delete this article and any subsequent incarnations of it. Peyna 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: i appreciate that you are genuine in your desire to contribute a good article to Wikipedia. However, this article is innapproriate, and from your comments on his talk page I do not think Uncle G is too mistaken in stating that you considered the article had relevance because of film references. Regarding the spelling, I presume by entries you are referring to google search results. In which case "panty waste" give 9840 [28] results, where as the correct "panty waist" gives 17,700 [29] — vastly more. I wonder if you just looked at the popularity of each word individually, in your search. Oh, and I can't believe I've just spent time googling such things! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
reply I was actually referring to the aol googl search of this http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?query=panty+waste&page=10&encquery=f2f982abf576e6b2124f38d80ce867b6&ie=UTF-8&invocationType=keyword_rollover and this http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?encquery=7c600fe98bc5e6851cb7a70a47a37bff&invocationType=keyword_rollover&ie=UTF-8 where there is signifigantly more under the term "panty waste" I beleave yous shows to google searches of both using different incorrect spellings and the term painty waist includes every time an article says the term wiast along with panty...mine may include every time the word panty is included with waste but I had no way of veryifing this as I went down the list....at any rate it I would state that at the very least about HALF of all people using the term seem to think it should be spelled the "incorrect way" , but beyond all that, I realize my effort is futile, and DO appreciate you acknowleding my work...for that I thank you, you have been very peasent in you criticisms.Pickelbarrel 23:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was told by Pickelbarrel that an article he wrote entitled Panty Waste was the subject of an AFD and he wondered if I could use my powers to help save the article. He had been tireless in the campaign to save the Taint article so I felt obligated to take a look. After reading the article and the debate on both sides I am afraid I have no choice but to side with the argument for deletion for the current article. But before those of you voting delete get excited at having my endorsement my research did turn up several uses for the term and so the current article will not exist for long. It seems located in the City of San Francisco there is a museum dedicated to undergarments named Panty Waste (yes that is the spelling). If the Museum of Bad Art can have its own article I suppose the Panty Waste museum can as well. The museum also sponsors a touring exhibition again entitled Panty Waste. The article is getting larger. Also of note is a line of Adult Movies entitled Panty Waste. So it seems this misspelling (an art Pickelbarrel has mastered) has unearthed a cornucopia of possible new articles. I see a possible Panty Waste disambiguation page in the future. Lastly I would like to ask that more senior editor treat newer editors with kindness. I know that sometimes they can be tiresome but remember it is their boundless energy that fuels the world of Wikipedia. This I order for the common good. --Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 03:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, nn podcast, fails WP:WEB Madchester 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People's Choice Podcast Awards

[edit]

Podcast award show with 195 Google hits and few to no verifiable and reliable sources reporting on its activities. FCYTravis 21:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete ➥the Epopt 02:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter j. walker

[edit]

non-notable bio; possibly vanity, as the article was created by User:Tupetewalker ➥the Epopt 00:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 15:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phatfish

[edit]

Non-notable Avi 13:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to be civil and assume good faith.

Keep - established band. [30] [31]. Latest album is for sale on amazon [32] --Oscarthecat 13:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They've actually got a few albums on amazon, if you take a look, dating from 2000 to 2005. [33] --Oscarthecat 08:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, nn podcast Madchester 06:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast News Network

[edit]

619 Google hits for something "podcast" seems rather low. Doesn't look to really have gained broad influence at this point. FCYTravis 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as hoax. Mushroom 08:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointlessnism

[edit]

Original research - 1 google hit Oscarthecat 08:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Very weird - this is the first time I've been edit conflicted for creating an AfD nomination subpage. As I was going to post in my own nomination for deletion: non-notable neologism/philosophical movement that makes no real claim to notability, provides no sources/references, and (as Oscarthecat mentioned) has no footprint on Google [34]. Could very well be a hoax. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 08:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. It has been argued that the subject is notable due to the restaurants age, but the article as it stands just states that it's a restaurant and its location. No prejudice against a new article which establishes the notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polidor

[edit]

restaurant without claim of notability delete. Melaen 20:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see also [35], what does make a restaurant notable ? --Melaen 20:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Polidor is a very old restaurant near Palais de Luxembourg in Paris. It is famous since its interior is kept from the 1800s. I added the Polidor entry after having visited it last year. I was expecting someone to add more information. There certainly is more to say about Polidor. abelson 07:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, it's completely non-notable. --Oscarthecat 08:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, nn forum, vanity Madchester 06:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers Central

[edit]

Non-notable forum, vanity Oscarthecat 08:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Rainmaking. Content is already merged (or exists). --Deathphoenix 21:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rain maker

[edit]

Neologism, possible protologism. LordViD 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Power Rangers. --Deathphoenix 21:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rangerboard

[edit]

Google has no records of other websites linking to this board. It's a fan board, nn, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, per WP:NOR Madchester 06:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Europe

[edit]

Delete. To have an article about "Republic of Europe", only to say that such a thing doesn't exist... Many things don't exist, should we have them all in Wikipedia? Aris Katsaris 23:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was WITHDRAWN by nominator; apparently Results pages are indeed supported by precedent. My apologies. I'm still opposed to carrying any legal threats there. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the Canadian federal election, 2006

[edit]

POV fork of Canadian federal election, 2006. Designed by User:E Pluribus Anthony to carry legal threats that were removed from the main article. There's no need to have the election in one article and the results in another. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: will Abstain until I understand Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 02:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Section 329 is only relevent while the polls are open .... i.e. for another 6 minutes. After the polls close, we still need this article! Nfitz 02:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back to "Speedy Keep, 1) precedent set per above, 2) it is about to be expanded, 3) subarticle will be needed." since sec329 is now irrelevent. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 03:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is this an attempt to skew the election by posting early "results" ? Ruby 01:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because I've been complaining that the ones who started it are actually leaning too far the other way - deleting early results! Not that I've been able to find any real results one way or another (unless you want to believe that NL elected 5 independents! :-) Nfitz 01:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The publication of results of the federal election on the Internet is illegal until all polls in Canada have closed.

I'm confused, the delete process is week-long process. The polls close in 47 minutes, and your asking the article be deleted because it violates Canadian law for those 47 minutes? Can you do us a favour and in 48 minutes cast a new vote based on the situation then? Nfitz 02:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act prohibits publication of election results before the close of all polling stations in all electoral districts that have access to the information. << what exactly does that statement mean? -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 02:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read Section 329 of the Elections Act and find out. What you quoted is misleading. --199.44.251.2 02:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC) .. BTW if anyone is interested. Reuters has posted the results. A link can be found on the discussion page for the article.[reply]

:*Section 329 seems to specifically address the idea of "outside Canada" and I think that's wrong. Besides, Wikipedia is not "outside Canada." What's relevant is that people inside Canada can access the information. It doesn't matter that the servers for Wikipedia or the offices for Wikipedia are located in the U.S. Crunch 02:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC) never mind.[reply]

  • Keep. We're going to want this page again shortly anyway. And until an international treaty says otherwise, Canada can't force censorship on the rest of the world. Maybe Wikipedia could block Canadian IPs... but I don't think so :). -Nichlemn 02:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Canada wants to come down here to do something about it they can take their best shot. Ruby 02:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
??? I'm sorry? I just don't understand wher ethis is coming from. There's no warnings up against anyone except Canadians?? Nfitz 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The publication law has been upheld for now. The Supreme Court may rule on it in the future, but it currently still stands. In addition, I do believe that this restriction of information is justified in the interests of electoral fairness. m. 02:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But now it no longer matters; it's safe to change your vote now. (I believe the same things as well, by the way.) -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 03:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 15:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Riddell/Temp

[edit]

Duplication of Robert Riddell, no reason to keep this subpage Stifle 18:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted.  Denelson83  20:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosario Poidimani

[edit]

Here we go againg. This is the second time user Manuel de Sousa, either declared or hidden behind IPs recreates this article after being decided here for deletion. Now he is making fun at all wikipedia users. Old decisions to delete are in here and here. This user has a history of ignoring community decisions, here and in wiki-pt where he was blocked already several times.

Againg: references to this pretender only exist in three places: 1) his own sites, wikipedia mirrors and wikipedia. Wikipedia can not be used as a platform for this kind of thing. It's not for this that Jim Wales created this project.

Relevant policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability

Please remember to be civil and assume good faith. muriel@pt 13:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • keep I see the return of Muriel, the famous Duarte Pio supporter! You affirms Rosario only exists in wikipedia and in his web page... this is FALSE. See : [[37]], [[38]], [[39]], [[40]], and also the administrator of Forum Monarquia Portugal writes: [[41]] and in many other web pages......

Dom Rosario is a pretender of The Royal House of Portugal and so has the right to stay in wikipedia also because he has many supporters and his rights are also confirmed by many impartial judges [[42]] M.deSousa, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete once again, for reasons noted before. A redirect in its place to Hilda Toledano and protection would be ideal. - Nunh-huh 19:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can only assume that this article, in one form or another, is going to be recreated over and over in order to keep the "claim" - in some format - alive on Wikpedia. Hence delete is probably insufficient and some form of blocking should be used. (Quite what I am not sure). Marcus22 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: insignificant nothingness. And it would be impossible to write a fairly non-pov article on that, given Manuel's/Rosario's attitude. Velho 19:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 15:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rusi rusu

[edit]

WP:NFT - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Powers 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was moot (likely outcome: delete). The articles were speedied as hoaxes, their creator indef. blocked. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schiroleptopidia, Schiroleptopidiollogy, Schiroleptopidian

[edit]

Unverifiable disease, the study thereof, and doctors thereof. No google hits for any of these terms, no references. Most (all?) of John locke (talk · contribs)'s contributions are apparent hoaxes or vanity or vandalism. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 13:34Z

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nothing here really mergable. —Cleared as filed. 02:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCHUSE

[edit]

Extremely minor organisation from Deus Ex. Hardly noteworthy. Only brief mention in game. No real information. Drat (Talk) 10:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Gus Grissom. --Deathphoenix 02:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Grissom

[edit]

Biographical article, only claim to notability is being the son of some random astronaut. WP:BIO suggests that it could be merged into Gus Grissom; I think it is a WikiNews article rather than a Wikipedia article. Stifle 20:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScreamFree

[edit]

Though it's not clear from the text, this is essentially an advertisement for a "parenting solution" product.[43] Only 996 Google hits. OhnoitsJamieTalk 23:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. There was an easy consensus that the content wasn't worth keeping. With the delete done, anyone can redirect to where they think is appropriate. —Cleared as filed. 02:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sets of sets

[edit]

This article is an explanation of a linguistic convention that, if it were correct, could only properly go in the article set (mathematics). Since it's not, it should go to the dustbin. -lethe talk 08:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Babajobu 15:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexpo

[edit]

This does not seem to be notable. It is simply a statement of an existence of a sex-shop.Prude 01:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 15:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiley's Center for Orthopaedic Research and Education

[edit]

Importance not asserted. 15 unique Google hits [44]. Hurricane111 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 15:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch (restaurant) - Pierre Gagnaire

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slut night

[edit]

Slut night, although perhaps popular with the Butch-femme.com crowd, is, unfortunately not in a very large crowd at all. Delete per advertisement. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean I can't do a Xena Night article? Ruby 22:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly seems more notable that this topic according to, for example, this reference. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know someone who is straight and they've never heard of Wet T-Shirt Nite at Toys Topless. It's not like all lesbians know everything about the meatmarket part of the subculture. Ruby 14:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but this term also gets very few Google hits, and I don't think it's worthy of a Wikipedia article either! GeorgeStepanek\talk 15:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as I get an invite to the next one... Kidding. Seems legit, again, I defer to those in the lifestyle to determine... Keep for now. Phantasmo 20:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 03:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Yan

[edit]

This sounds like a remarkable young woman and I genuinely dislike bringing this here since she really seems notable, but there are no relevant Googles and the whole thing seems rather self-promotional. - Lucky 6.9 17:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wow look at all those awards. Ruby 17:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I had considered listing this page for deletion, but didn't because I read the author's statement when he or she created the page. He/she seems to realize that it may be a vanity page. Kareeser|Talk! 17:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that might have been me, not her. It is grossly self-promotional, but if she wants to put in the time and effort I am happy start with that as a basis for an article. I googled a little and found a few references - mostly high school awards admittedly. She is at Oberon. She works for their paper. I would like more details about her tours and a whole lot more references. I say keep but modify the living daylights out of it. Lao Wai 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a new writer/editor to Wikipedia, I have yet to learn the format, rules, etc.! Would appreciate some help in revising the article to "Wikify" the entry. I hope to continue adding to the site with information about rising artists whose contributions I believe have a more far-reaching capacity than they will ever know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.116 (talk • contribs)
Just be sure that your subjects have received verifiable recognition before posting and always cite your sources. PJM 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If all those performances, awards, and write ups can be verified, it's too outstanding to delete, IMO. PJM 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be fantastic. I believe links do exist for these awards; however, it seems the pages are updated periodically with a list of the new winners, etc. I am unsure how to find those pages again, if they are even still on the web. Do not know how to link pages!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.116 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete unless proofs are provided (in which case, I would agree for a speedy keep). - Liberatore(T) 17:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I have no idea of what notability those achievements imply, so I am withdrawing myself from this discussion. - Liberatore(T) 14:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The awards put her well above the threshold required by WP:MUSIC ("Has won or placed in a major music competition."). I agree that the article needs some attention to verifiability, though. –Sommers (Talk) 17:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per various reasons mentioned. Looks like it's already in the process of being cleaned up. OhnoitsJamieTalk 21:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending further verification/importance checks, cleanup in progress, editor/s have added some links showing awards meeting appearing to meet WP:MUSIC since nomination and earlier votes. Editor is encouraged to continue, and to refer to WP:BIO for the general biography guidelines. There are templates there where you can copy code to set up information boxes in standard ways, add pictures, and otherwise Wikify it. Barno 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Impressive sounding but further investigations seems to reveal that the awards, competitions and "tour" are all youth student activities. There are lots of these all over the world and lots of kids win these. I don't think participants or even winners of these are particularly notable considering that there are people Sophia's age performing exclusively in "adult" settings with adult peers. Crunch 00:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I do not believe any of the awards, media citations, concerts, etc. meet WP:MUSIC The competitions are either not major enough and/or she did not win or place in them. Again, they sound impressive, but they're not. Crunch 01:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The reason I'm fighting this so much it that I think it sets a dangerous precedent for including articles for every young person who particpates in these young peoples music competitions, maybe wins one and gets written up in their hometown paper. It's easy to make it look impressive and if we allow this, Wikipedia will be inundated with articles of talented kids. This is not Midori or Josh Groban, not even close, and I do not see that she was "featured" in the NY Times. The article was from the New Jersey local news section of the Times (she lives in New Jersey) talking about teenagers that weren't getting into trouble. That's a long way from a feature story in the Arts section of the Times. With all due respect, I really think AfD submissions like this deserve more careful analysis. It's nothing personal against Ms. Yan, who seems like a perfectly charming, intelligent, and talented young lady who will go very far in music, or whatever she decides to pursue. It's about keeping to the WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO guidelines. Crunch 12:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a difference between the Spokane metro area and the New York metro area in terms of notability. The NYT has a very high standard for news articles, and the article in question was not just a filler blurb, but made its way into the Metro section of the number two newspaper in the country. That says something about the quality of the talent and/or potential. Calwatch 05:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The NY Times article was not about youths not getting into trouble; it was merely an opening. The rest of the article features two young pianists, Dae Hyung Ahn and Sophia Yan, both NJ residents. I believe the same article was later distributed in the Metro section of the Times. In addition, some of the competitions are now registed under a different name, but the winners do not change. From what I could find, she seems to have placed first a number of times in various competitions. You win a Steinway in one of them (cannot remember which) as the first place winner! Also, Midori can no longer be considered a youth. The difference is this -- while Midori and Groban have careers, they are professionals. Yan is a rising star, which is why I am intent on following her career path. Exactly that makes her a notable youth. There are some more details that I suppose can be included to fit the bio requirements. Mozart250
  • Comment. If Wikipedia is about noting rising young stars with potential then we should Keep all the new young rock bands we keep Deleting here. As for Midori, I meant Midori when she was young and competing on the stage on equal footing with adults. Same with Groban. Also, I don't see anywhere that the Steinway Society competition "gives away a Steinway." According to the Web site, "The Steinway Society is a tax exempt, piano scholarship organization" which people pay to join. Also, people pay to attend the conerts. They take the proceeds from the membership and the concert admissions and divide it up into scholarship funds for the winners. Last years it was "$3-4,000" to all the winners. Crunch 18:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment. Thanks. I'm sorry about that. I still don't see anything on the MTNA web site about giving away a piano, but I trust you're right. IN any case, I'm not sure if the value of the prize is any relation to the notability of the perfomer. Speaking of the MTNA competition, it does say that the purpose of the national competition which Yang won is "to provide educational experiences for students and teachers and to recognize exceptionally talented young artists" which again just puts her in the really talented student category, not qute in the WP:MUSIC league. Crunch 21:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Ranch

[edit]

A ranch. Appears to be non-notable. Not a speedy because (for one thing) there's no speedy for locations. 396 Google hits but first 40 contain passing reference at best. If anybody lives in Arizona maybe they have some insight on this? It's near Prescott. Herostratus 17:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, Ruby. WP:BEANS. Herostratus
  • Delete- As an Arizonian, I have never heard of this place. Probably it is not notable enough. Daniel_Hoz 17:10 , 2 Febuary 2006 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, so keep. --Deathphoenix 03:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems

[edit]

I've thought about this a lot after cleaning up the article and attempting to monitor it, and I'm no longer sure it deserves a place on Wikipedia. Look at this edit - It may be perfectly valid as a theory, but there's no way to check if the contributer simply thought that up on the spot and added it, thus it's original research it might be original research. The same could also be said about some of my own additions. The article is wide open for original research and in some people's eyes may qualify as Trekcruft. There's also the very real danger that it is succeptable to an easy loss of POV, given the 'soapbox' style favoured by some. The article's talk page demonstrates some of these problems. Hayter 09:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think it's an interesting and encyclopedic article (despite hardly being a Trekkie at all, honest.) I agree that OR is a problem and I agree it's a big one - with a lot of articles - but it calls for discussion and cleanup, not deletion. Someone should certainly go through it carefully and remove the OR. Is there a "This article is suspected to contain original research" tag that can be put on articles like this? Can we have one? Is this the place to ask? Robin Johnson 10:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trouble is, with something like this, there's no way to determine what is or isn't original research. You can't cite sources for arguments as you would with another article e.g. "The Voyager once docked at Deep Space Nine. (VOY: "Caretaker") Almost all the sections run with "some fans theorise..." With the exception of those situations where the studio has put forth an explanation for 'errors' and this can be cited, this could all be seen as OR. And given that the studio has been largely silent in regards to its alleged violation of the Star Trek canon, except to say "we haven't done it," what does that leave for the article? - Hayter 11:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've read the article again, and it's worse than I remembered - unsalvageable. Interesting stuff, but that doesn't make an article. Delete. Robin Johnson 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually there is, and you mention it yourself: Cited sources. If people have already published books or magazine articles propounding arguments about continuity and self-consistency, then documenting those arguments is not original research. One can cite sources, if they exist. The problem with the article is whether the sources exist, or whether the entire contents of this article are new arguments and theories made up by Wikipedia editors directly in Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But you also have the problem of judging reputable sources. I'd hate for the article to be filled up with links to places like Neoseeker where coversation runs in a similar fashion to, "an wat are the romulanz doin wiv warp drive - pissants don't have it yet." And even respected sites such as Ex Astris Scientia are ultimately run by one person so whilst I may find it to be a valid source, User X may not. This is what I see as the main problem with the article. By its nature, it cannot be adequately cited as say, an article about perceptions of FOXnews, which would be covered in national papers and the like. For something such as this, I feel the only options are allowing OR or deleting the article. Clearly, the first is not allowed so that leaves one solution. - Hayter 17:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- doesn't make sense for a substantial article to be deleted. Post a cleanup tag if it needs work, or a POV tag if necessary. Astrotrain 11:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very important for WP credibility to delete pages which are unsourceable by nature, especially large ones. Any truly encyclopedic content will find its way into other pages. Must be disciplined.
  • Keep- I tend to agree with Astrotrain. This article does have its merit, it may not be provable that these are discontinuities but the article points to real and certifiable concerns of some of the Star Trek fans about the production of new episodes for the series. Maybe a solution should be to address the article with that in mind. Askewmind | (Talk) 12:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Astrotrain and Askewmind. Has potential. Essexmutant 12:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it had "potential", or parts of it had "merit", do you guys really foresee that the necessary work will be done to source it properly? It seems more likely just to be a persistent embarrassment to WP (like many other pages), not doing justice to the parts of it which are good, which would be far more credible in the context of various other articles. Kill this one and you will benefit from renewal elsewhere. Zargulon 12:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, interesting article. I'm not sure of the protocol regarding interwiki transfers, but can this just be moved to Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki? It would be a much better place for an article of this length and detail. --Canley 14:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's hardly a TV show out there that doesn't have "continuity problems" like this. It's all just made-up stuff, and examining the fiction at this level of detail isn't an encyclopedic thing to do. Monicasdude 14:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC
  • Keep. I disagree with Monicasdude. Details are everything to the harder-core Star Trek fans. Perhaps "Continuity Problems in TV Show 'Family Ties'" doesn't warrant a page, but it certainly does for Star Trek. I sympathize with the people who point out its lack of sources, and the page certainly needs work, but I think it's an important enough topic to warrant an article (or at least part of one). -Bindingtheory 14:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge most important points into main article. This vote comes after a lot of soul-searching since I was one of the people who originated this article, spinning it off from the main series article. Its purpose prior to May 2005 was essentially to try and provide an outlet for both criticism and rebuttal of a then-current television series which had become very controversial, and the tug-of-war between people who assumed every line of dialogue was wrong and those who actually liked the show had derailed the main article once to often. The series is no longer current, therefore IMO this article's function is at an end in it's current form. Perhaps an article on overall Trek continuity issues could be created from this; after all, Phil Farrand published at least 3 "Nitpicker" books on the subject for TOS, TNG and DS9. 23skidoo 15:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a good article, maybe needs a tag to say it needs more sources - it has some at the bottom, but it could use some more -- Astrokey44|talk 15:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stergios Roumeliotis

[edit]

probabli not encyclopedic . Melaen 19:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to be civil and assume good faith.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio, hoax. Mushroom 14:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Cooney

[edit]

Appears to be a hoax, but the claim this individual has received a Victoria Cross seems to be a claim of notability. The fact that he would have not reached his 16th birthday at the time of the award combined with a lack of positive hits during a web search leads to the belief that this is most likely a fictional article. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the article's claims. --Allen3 talk 13:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily redirected by kingboyk. —Cleared as filed. 02:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Outta' Compton

[edit]

Delete as unverifiable and probable vanity / vandalism. Already marked as hoax. Page created by user HHH43089 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HHH43089) also responsible for vandalism on Ritter. Lockley 23:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything about the song is at the album page: Straight Outta Compton. BabuBhatt 01:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sungerton

[edit]

WP:ISNOT for things made up in school one day, as it sounds that htis game was Drdisque 06:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Result : Speedy delete (non notable)

Tanners United

[edit]

Unknown football team. Delete chowells 13:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, nn podcast. Madchester 06:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Podcasts Network

[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable website. Podcruft. Stifle 21:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, discounting all the sockpuppets and AfD-purposed accounts. --Deathphoenix 03:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Ratzmann

[edit]

I think this article is POV or does not have enough infomation regarding itself. Adnghiem501 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(User:BMXJouster, who just created his account today, originally deleted this post, I am restoring it) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)
Okay, now he has deleted all of these comments a second time, vandalizing the vote. I guess that clears up any doubts. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now a third time that User:BMXJouster has deleted this information. I'm now reporting him for vandalism. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A 4th and 5th time now, that he's deleted the opposing viewpoints pointing out that they're all his own sockpuppets voting Delete. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please give the admins more credit than this. First, you've turned the AfD page into an awful mess. A simple sockpuppet notice at the top of the AfD would have been sufficient. Second, you're also likely creating a bias against a delete vote by your actions, since editors will see this mess and automatically assume that the nomination was in bad faith. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please bear in mind that closing admins are supposed to look at such things when determining consensus. Also, bear in mind that this is not a vote. Peyna 16:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Assistant (band)

[edit]

Self Promotion, blatant.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The chinese pirates

[edit]

Searching for references for this article, I found this BBC News item. Something tells me that it's unrelated though. -- Perfecto 05:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps would make sense to establish notability guidelines for gangs? Ikh (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated Comment Do we have an article on Pirates(sea pirates) in China? It's a fascinating subject so I thought I'd ask.--T. Anthony 14:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-band. Mushroom 05:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The detours

[edit]

NN band. —Blotwell 03:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. Calton's comment is tantamount to a "keep" vote, and it's a pretty heavy one. --Deathphoenix 03:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Empress of the Style Invitational

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD G8. Mushroom 10:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Game (game)/Places where The Game is played

[edit]

Talk page linked from the main article The Game (game). While the location is obviously innapropriate, I believe the page itself has no relevance, either (hence why I brought the issue here). As "The Game" is a meme, there is little to no evidence of "The Game" being played in any of these locations, nor do I believe would such a list be encyclopedic (would "List of places where Monopoly is played be appropriate?). Delete. --InShaneee 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great American Sweatout

[edit]

Unverifiable game (no google hits whatsoever). Looks like WP:NFT. Stifle 16:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, nn, fails WP:WEB Madchester 06:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Memo Report

[edit]

What do you call an online magazine with no Google hits? -- Perfecto 04:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to MySpace. --Deathphoenix 03:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MySpace Song

[edit]

This is not notable or of encylcopedic value. Needs to be merged or deleted. -VanillaX


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second dimension

[edit]

recently speedy deleted as "non-notable" and recreatged. IMO this does not quslify under the speedy delete criteria but neither does it appear to meet WP:WEB. Delete unless relaibel sources are cited to estblish notability. DES (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete Non-notable website, as per WP:WEB.  (aeropagitica)  21:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-group. Mushroom 07:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sports Central

[edit]

Just an orphaned article that's an ad to an unimportant website (which has moved, apparently). -- transaspie 05:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator.[47] — TheKMantalk 06:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thiosulfate ion

[edit]

Doesn't assert importance, gives no info besides a chemical formula. NickelShoe 02:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a quick glance at the article for Hydrogen Cyanide to check the format shows the importance is given in the second paragraph, it may not be the standard format for chemical articles to give the importance before the technical specifications. Ruby 04:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Nyborg

[edit]

Tim Nyborg ran as an independent candidate in the 2006 Canadian federal election. He received 342 votes, 0.9% of the total. In other words his candidacy went largely unnoted. Punkmorten 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 16:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TINS

[edit]

delete advertising. Melaen 22:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Jinian 17:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic Thompson

[edit]

Context-free article on some fictional character, all references are redlinks. Stifle 18:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toga (penguin)

[edit]

Unencyclopedic. This is an article about a jackass penguin missing from a zoo in the Isle of Wight. -- Longhair 12:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator Ifnord 14:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tricks of the Windows Game Programming Gurus

[edit]

This might be a speedy candidate but I'm putting it here as this is my first AFD nomination and I don't want to do anything stupid. This makes no assertion of notability or encyclopedic content. Raven4x4x 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, cancel that. This is a proper article [48] that was just taken over by a vandal. I can't belive I didn't spot that. Great job not doing anything stupid... Oh well, I withdraw the nomination. Raven4x4x 11:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, fails WP:COMIC Madchester 06:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Cent

[edit]

nn webcomic, no alexa webdata, one google hit. Fails to meet WP:COMIC by a large, large margin. Delete. RasputinAXP talk contribs 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "one google hit" argument invalid - specific web links only show one result in google. Searching "two cent comic" in google yields more than one result for the actual comic. unsigned comment by 166.113.26.214 (talk · contribs)
Comment: OK, still one hit. Put "two cent in quotes bu itself and you get two, one self-referential. Those are pretty common words. RasputinAXP talk contribs 19:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your link still gives more than one result.(unsigned comment by Toke Hax (talk · contribs))
Only one that references the webcomic in the first five pages. The rest, since they're not actually referencing the comic in question, don't count. RasputinAXP talk contribs 02:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why shouldn't there be a web-encyclopedia for small groups too? Define popularity. (unsigned comment by Toke Hax (talk · contribs))
There is. There's your own website for that and you can install any wiki you want on it. Wikipedia has requirements for notability. RasputinAXP talk contribs 02:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep - per WP:IAR. FCYTravis 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia

[edit]

This page is about a subject that is not notable, it does not reference any media reports or any other proof that the Uncycopedia is notable and that this page is anything more than advertising JK the unwise 17:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is the sort of nomination that is ill-considered enough to attract averse attention from the other parts of Wikipedia (and indeed Wikimedia) to AFD. Those who don't want AFD dealt with by parts of Wikipedia outside AFD need to solve nominations this bad being possible - David Gerard 22:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an Uncyclopedia admin, I'm opposed to that latter idea. It may be a comedy site, but I'd rather not have every one of Wikipedia's vandals made aware of it, for hopefully obvious reasons. Codeine 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, is anyone here opposed to an early close then? Kim Bruning 18:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you were going to say that. Try to check the same user name in the spanish and hebrew versions of wikipedia and u'll get different results. Happy?--Rataube 19:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go write a personal message to me on your other pages, then come back and give me direct links to then and if your combined edits are more than my total edits, then I'll be happy. --DelftUser 19:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to this your combined edits on both wiki's is 30 edits, is that correct? --DelftUser 19:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That might be correct. It's also correct that i started contributing wikipedia long before this vote, and i started contributing wikipedia before uncy (same user name if u wanna check). And my last edit here was just a few days ago, so u can see I'm still active here. Not considering my vote would go against your policies. I thought policies did matter over here.--Rataube 19:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this your way of saying you have almost a 1000 edits on Uncyclopedia? --DelftUser 19:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what? I'm active at wikipeia aswell, my arguement still stands. Nevermind, It wont get deleted anyway, take a look around...--Rataube 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE. Jinian 16:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn chaser

[edit]

Delete: Completely idiosyncratic non-topic Shoehorn 03:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 16:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Unlawful arrest

[edit]

Not an encyclopedia article; rather, a listing of quotes from various trials (court decisions?) with no context or link to the cases. Delete and redirect to false arrest. If somebody wants to incorporate useful contents to arrest and related articles, I don't want to stand in his way, but I consider it a hopeless task. - Mike Rosoft 10:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily redirected Ifnord 14:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upper structure

[edit]

duplicates Upper structure triad

Please remember to be civil and assume good faith. Guy Hatton 13:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Result : Speedy Delete as non-notable

Van Johnson (band)

[edit]

Not notable, one editor.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wavedashing

[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and should belong in its Wikibook entry or merged into the main SSBM article. Hbdragon88 02:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayrttd

[edit]

Non notable slang term Only 25 goggle hits most from wiki mirrors [53] Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 01:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weezy and the Swish

[edit]

Random podcast, no notability whatsoever. WP:WEB Stifle 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weka (machine learning)

[edit]

Software written by some students, does not appear to be notable. WP:NFT Stifle 19:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – I'm the one who created the article, so I might be biased. But I believe the Weka project implementations are fairly well known in the machine learning community and used in contemporary research. Accordingly, I feel this subject matter is encyclopedic. I'm planning on submitting a paper to ICML that cites these implementations for some of the algorithms I tested in the research.--AlphaEtaPi 23:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whipfest

[edit]

Looks like neologism James084 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted for having no actual content. All it said was "Welcome To Wiki-Hurricane Stop Your Wikipedia Place for Hurricane Info We Would like to thankyou for useing this Wiki-site of the Main site Stuff Coming Soon ". Friday (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Hurricane Stop

[edit]

Extensive information on hurricanes can be found throughout the hurricane season articles and others about hurricanes in general. No content as of yet, also. Delete - Bootstoots 22:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedy deleted this. No need for Afd in my opinion, it wasn't an article at all and didn't look like it was trying to be one. Friday (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_24&oldid=1234127680"