Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--God of War 19:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 110th Street (Manhattan)

No notability at all. Are we going to list every street in America? I actually found this page because it was put on a forum as an example of how wikipedia expansion will never stop. Enough said. God of War 23:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• In this specific case I'd say Keep - fine wee article on a notable street (notable because of the boundary between Harlem & Upper East Side, plus the movie & song). Room for expansion too (links the movie page and the disambig page for the subway stations, maybe mention Tito Puente Way). Jxan3000 23:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: notable per Jxan3000 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Where (talk • contribs).
• Keep. While perhaps not every street in Manhattan is notable, several of them clearly are (Wall St, Broadway, 42nd St). 110th St falls into the latter camp. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep of course. Very memorable Manhattan crosstown byway. Let's pray that Wikipedia's expansion never stops. -- JJay 00:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this particular just-barely-notable street, provided that is not taken as a precedent for including articles on every crosstown street in Manhattan. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable street Thomas 20:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.90.38.191 (talk • contribs).
• Keep Wikipedia is not just a general encyclopedia but also incorporates many specialist reference books. This is part of Wikipedia's "Encyclopedia of New York City". CalJW 03:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable street in NYC. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 04:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough. Calwatch 05:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see I was mistaken about the notability of streets. Ah well, we will be to a million articles sooner than I thought :)--God of War 05:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. One of the most well-known places in Manhattan. I stayed on 110th Street once and it seemed quite notorious throughout the city. Essexmutant 09:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since there seem to be clear consensus to keep, I am withdrawing this AFD. I don't want to waste anymore time when the final outcome is obvious.--God of War 05:53, 31 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 redirect to Hanson (band). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tulsa, Tokyo and The Middle of Nowhere

Article info identical to Hanson (band) article. Talked with Xanadu (the only person to edit it within the last 2 months) and he is ok if it is deleted or a redirect is put into place. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge (the penultimate edit, if necessary) and redirect. -Ikkyu2 07:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• PS2pcGAMER, please don't submit "article redirect" proposals in "articles for deletion". Go ahead and do it, with a right edit summary. It saves time and effort of everyone. --Perfecto 15:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your suggestion. I will be more bold in the future. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge --lightdarkness 17:32, 29 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hematoma (band) and For Yours We Wait

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC, although I'm aware there may be cultural bias here. Always open to new information. Note that there are a few other articles hanging off this one. brenneman^(t)(c) 00:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete nn band which fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Ruby 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The band has a CD, which has an article of its own: For Yours We Wait, which was tagged for speedy deletion. I added a {{hangon}} tag, and would like to link the to deletion discussions here if possible. Anyone know how to do this? --Hansnesse 00:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just use {{subst:afd}} as normal, but then once it's saved you go back and edit the link on the notice like this. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Fabulous, thanks for the tip. --Hansnesse 01:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There are issues of cultural bias, and I would love to read more articles about Portuguese metal, or Brazilian metal (an article I just saw on CSD), but this seems to be non-notable. - squibix 01:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN Maustrauser 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as apparently failing WP:NMG. The demo album does not count! Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as the article indicates, they've been on Portugese TV, which meets it for me. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:47, 30 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Airlines flight numbers

It doesn't seem that there needs to be an entire article just for this extremely specific subject. No other airlines have it, and it seems to go against WP:NOT. Dbinder 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Dbinder 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --M@thwiz2020 00:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Also note that pretty much all articles in Category:Singapore Airlines should be checked over. SYCTHOS^talk 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I also put a merge request for Singapore Airlines fleet to the main page. Feel free to comment there as well. Dbinder 01:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ruby 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as very easy to fall out of date. MartinRe 01:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep helper article to main SIA page. --Vsion 01:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A 48KB helper article? This information should be listed on the company site, and the main article should link there. SYCTHOS^talk 01:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have the link? Thks. --Vsion 01:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • For some reason, I can't access the company site. I would think the data must be somewhere, but the only reference cited was the homepage. SYCTHOS^talk 01:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 04:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful information, this looks bias. Can't flight numbers have an article on its own. If you prefer to move the information to the main article, its fine. Why are we trying to give readers less information, when we are building an online encyclopedia? --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 09:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a debate on the usefulness of the information. There is no need for a 48 KB article on one airline's flight numbers. The main article already has an outline of the flight number assignments, which is plenty for an encyclopedia. As I mentioned in the nomination, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Dbinder 14:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Then can you explain why this page stayed on Wikipedia for almost a year? --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's only an indicator of how much crud we have to clean up. Ruby 14:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and MartinRe. These numbers must change constantly. Singapore Airlinescruft, if you ask me. --Aaron 09:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A Singapore Airlinescruft too. --*drew 15:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Sliggy 17:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete difficult to keep up to date. Link to SA's website from main SA article and people can look up their timetable/flight schedules there.--Kalsermar 18:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, way too specific, and of too little encyclopedic use. A list of Singapore Airlines destinations and routes is fine but indvidual flight numbers is airlinecruft. JIP | Talk 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete can safely be left to the airline to keep this up to date. Anyone wanting to know a Singapore flight number will go there before Wikipedia, for obvious and excellent reasons. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kalsermar. —rodii 19:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft ComputerJoe 22:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I can see plenty of uses for this in the future, especially when elaborating on our transport article. "Cruft" is being used too indiscriminately here, it wasn't created out of obsession. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An informative and comprehensive look at flight numbers. This is information not crud or its non-word counterpart "cruft". Let's give contributors a minimum of respect. -- JJay 01:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: the paragraph in Singapore Airlines is plenty. Any exceptions can be noted there. Calwatch 05:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, otherwise transwiki per nominator's suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines fleet. - Mailer Diablo 03:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Airline scheduling information is prone to changing frequently making this thing tough to keep updated. It's better covered by Singapore Airlines' own website. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a very good and well-researched article, but it is subject to change and is unencyclopedic. I hesitate to call it listcruft and I am not asserting anything but the utmost good faith by the nominator, but this simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. Stifle 13:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per all of the reasons above. Vegaswikian 08:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —This user has left wikipedia 10:09 2006-02-02

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultan

Not enough notability as a saint for an entire article. Either deserves a space in another article, or should not be mentioned.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Last Avenue (talk • contribs) .

• Speedy Keep All RC Saints are notable enough for their own article. This article should have been tagged for expansion, not AfD. (Note: I have also objected to the speedy delete tag on the talk page).Youngamerican 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article should be renamed St. Ultan of Ardbraccan.Youngamerican 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, saint with article in real encylopedia [1]. Renaming sounds right. Kappa 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Young American. Ruby 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and rename to St. Ultan of Ardbraccan per Youngamerican. The speedy tag I placed was incorrect and I now recognize that. SYCTHOS^talk 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Saint is notable.. per above rename may be a good idea Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep and rename. I've extended the article a bit further. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be that much known about him. Grutness...wha? 03:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful to have a list of saints. Maustrauser 05:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. Saints are inherently interesting to historians of Roman Catholicism, a notable world religion. -Ikkyu2 07:57, 28 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. Mailer Diablo 03:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gleek (Involuntary spit)

I'm AFDing this mainly because I'm sure someone will speedy it as patent nonsense if I don't. It gets quite a few google hits [2] so it does appear to be a meaningful concept. Kappa 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Notable thing hitting the back of my neck in third period civics, circa 1993. Youngamerican 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Switching to regular keep per rewrite. Youngamerican 13:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dictionary definition. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. There is no reason to transwiki, as the definition is already noted on Wikitionary. SYCTHOS^talk 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sycthos. Ruby 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Assuming it is worthy of placement there, it should be in Wikitionary Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Please note that this article is a how-to of the procedure, not solely a dictionary definition. Brabblebrex 00:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How to gleek? Could you explain the importance of this action? SYCTHOS^talk 00:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's just a strange/amusing thing to do with your body. Think of it as a "real-life easter egg" Brabblebrex 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that clarification. Wikipedia is not a how-to, explicitly. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, unless sources can be cited. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC) as transwikkied, per SYCTHOS. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, including a how-to and a dictionary. Ikkyu2 03:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per per Scythos. Eusebeus 04:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Worthy of a short article (maybe), though it should be renamed as Gleeking as the action is not necessarily involuntary (as the article itself indicates). Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC).
  • If you think it should be done as such, go ahead. brabblebrex 07:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 18:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Changing my vote to Strong keep, as the article has been renamed and significantly cleaned up. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 20:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (or maybe cross-wiki to Wiktionary). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Transwiki is another option. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 09:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• It's a real word for a real action, but it has no potential for expansion. Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:15, Jan. 28, 2006
• Keep This is not a dicdeff, it is a brief scientific entry. It doesn't logically fit on another page, so it's own page seems fine. The meaning is dic deff. The fact that it can be done is an interesting biological fact. It could be expanded a bit with links or descriptions of the glands or nerves or whatever that make this work.Obina 11:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, just not enough content there yet to rise above a dicdef. Allow a better article to be created in the future, but delete for now. Turnstep 14:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The future is here! Keep the new and improved version. Turnstep 02:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this fine little stub. Could do with attention from someone with a grasp of the biology, but that's no reason to delete. Lupin|talk|popups 14:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and transwikied. *drew 16:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since (a) this is not the only definition of gleeking I've seen and (b) none of the definitions I've seen constitutes a reliable source and (c) it's a dictdef anyway. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Also, nonsense: how can there be a how-to for an "involuntary" action? —rodii 19:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has been renamed as Gleeking and indicates that gleeking may be voluntary or involutary. It is thus no longer vulnerable to this (formerly legitimate) objection. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 20:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Noted in the Wiktionary ComputerJoe 22:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs some cleanup but it does cite several sources. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Bemused keep: This is one of those articles that make me blink a couple times. It's kind of silly, could very well be an extremely subtle joke, but it does have a spiffy graphic and big words. It also has pretty decent references and citations, and I suppose it's indisputable that it describes something that does actually happen. If culture has stepped up to fill a linguistic void which science has neglected, shouldn't this entry have a kind of common law right to exist? Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 00:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep. It seems to be real, and has been around since at least 1988, with several citations. As long as we can write more than a dicdef on the topic (and a scientific explanation with diagram seems to fit that) it's worth keeping. Night Gyr 01:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, this article has changed significantly since the nomination. Many of the original objections no longer apply. Night Gyr 01:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: this is now far beyond a dictionary definition. Ardric47 03:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; although I'd generally heard gleek used in a slightly different sense than in the article.--ragesoss 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Adrian Lamo. I can't see any reason to delete. Stifle 13:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mccready 16:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and verifiable. Ifnord 19:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Already redirected to Gleeking, which was definitely the right thing to do, IMHO.--M@rēino 17:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, the content was moved to Gleeking (an article that did not previously exist). Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 19:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C.I.U.

A "magical organization" founded by two artists and two musicians, with no assertion or evidence of notability/importance. Neglected article created by 207.244.146.201 (talk • contribs). Unverifiable: no Google hits for "Clear Infinite Universe". Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-28 00:37Z

• Speedy delete as non-notable organization (CSD A7). Tagged. SYCTHOS^talk 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Sycthos. Ruby 01:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 04:57, 28 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bongolander

slang, altought mentioned(?) in one book. delete. Melaen 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete might be a sneaky ad for www.bongolander.com. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I lean toward the OhNoitsJamie theory. Ruby 01:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and OhNoitsJamie. JIP | Talk 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete either a protologism or self-promotion. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 19:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; only 100 google hits
• Delete agreed w/ above. —This user has left wikipedia 10:10 2006-02-02

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BANKSHOT! Records

• Delete as article on vanity subject. Even the article admits that this business is small. SYCTHOS^talk 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn label. Ruby 01:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep (i am the creator). have put out records by seminal 3rd wave ska band Choking Victim and Leftover Crack, but are the main label of neither; since that's just about it in terms of notability i don't have any strong objections to deletion. --Heah ^talk 04:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Eusebeus 04:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Nick Catalano (Talk) 04:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete but open to persuasion if any evidence can be found to support notability. "official" website & WP are the top two Googles. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. —This user has left wikipedia 10:10 2006-02-02

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 into Zanzibar and editorialise. First up, the nomination was just a vote, not a nomination at all. Secondly, that vote was one for merging. Now, AfD is not the place to go if you want an article to be merged. You can do that yourself. Maybe we should have a Wikipedia:Request for merge page for those who want a merge but don't know how? But we've already got those purdy tags ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamamni Persian Baths

Merge into Zanzibar as there isn't enough information even on the linked site to warrant an entire article. Iamvered 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's not one of the seven wonders of the world, but it qualifies as a geography stub. Ruby 01:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I actually agree with Ruby, but the fact is that if left where it is, this shall remain totally neglected, visited only by the occasional bot or two. Merging back to the main article may bring it some attention from the much larger number of editors who work on the Zanzibar page. In this case, merging is in practice better than keeping. Eusebeus 04:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Qualifies as a geographical stub... per Ruby Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Won't something like this with so little reference forever be a stub? I say let's merge it soon! Iamvered 03:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep valid topic. Dsmdgold 13:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per agove. —This user has left wikipedia 10:10 2006-02-02
• Merge to Zanzibar#Culture --M@rēino 17:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Everest Pixel Dream Website

Although the cause may be good, this page is just an advertisement for a non-notable (Alexa rank 718,815) web site. It should be deleted until they have some achievements under their belt. Kevin 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per article, "Pixel advertising website launches to raise funds..." Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertisement. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I personally don't think any of these spinoff 'pixel websites' are ever going to be notable enough to warrant an article. Obli (Talk) 01:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Neither do I, which is why I have systematically removed them from The Million Dollar Homepage. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advertising for advertiser. Ruby 01:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination.--Drat (Talk) 02:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and burn with fire. Spam in a good cause is still spam, and WP is not the place to post press releases, whoever they might be from. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising. Latinus 19:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 10:11 2006-02-02

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep the rewrite. Deathphoenix 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Choronzon (Music project)

If I understood correctly tihis is a music/multimedia project done with a capable computer and access to a CD-writer. non notable.delete. Melaen 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn hard drive recording, "at least until discs can be pressed" as the article puts it. Ruby 01:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because, having read it twice, I still can't see what the supposed claim to notability is. These guys seem to believe pretty sincerely in themselves, b ut I don't see a lot of evidence of external interest. Could be wrong, not my genre and all, but until then I can't tell the difference between this and PR. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Rewrite: You'd never know it from the article but the American/P. Emerson Williams version of this band has released four full-length albums - and at least three of them are available on Amazon. So the band is apparently notable. The article is just written so poorly that it's hard to tell. I would've voted Delete/Rewrite but there's some interesting info in the article if you read hard enough and that shouldn't be lost. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I threw in a discography from http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=4442. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep (wonderful job with the rewrite) --Melaen 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As original writer of article I do not understand what was so "poorly written" about it. Though the discography is appreciated (I had meant to add it myself) to have everything about the history of the project blanked out reduces any of the identifying characteristics of the project. And it is a project, not a "band" insofar as the music is not conventional and the members do not play live shows. Please inform me if I've broken some Wikipedia rule in posting this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychaotic (talk • contribs) .
  • No offense but it was fairly confusing the way it was. It was also very non-standard. The standard is to give a short, sweet introduction and then try to give some history. And the quantity of history should be relative to the importance of the band. No one's ever heard of this band so it doesn't make sense to write a longer article for it than a more well-known band. This was getting into deeper detail than I think most wanted to hear. Maybe that's just me though - when I read biographies on bands' websites, I usually bail-out from sheer boredom after about a paragraph - and that's for bands I love. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The way I figure it, especially in the digital milieu "significance" is becoming more and more subjective and the grounds for determining it are hazy. I felt that the history, in this case, is part of what makes the project significant. Have you ever heard of another band or project that formed from more than one individual using the same (obscure) name and then deciding to collaborate? Or a band with occult referents that had not one but two incidents of natural disasters following completions of their works? I appreciate your constructive criticism here (just saying something is poorly written is not constructive crit imho) but as far as "deeper detail" goes, what else would someone want when they look up something in an encyclopedia? If one merely wants a definition they go for a dictionary. I'd have gone on for three or four screens of text that would've been one thing; I consciously and conscientiously kept it pretty simple. I don't want to be a pain in the rear (I imagine this place is full of idiotic, interminable time-wasting arguments and I do not want this to become one of same) but I would like to replace some of the information that the rewrite discarded - particularly the above information as it is of primary significance - and it is my hope that if I do so in a more succinct fashion that it will not be hosed off. Psychaotic 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That sounds like a plan. If you caught the end of my earlier sentence: "there's some interesting info in the article if you read hard enough and that shouldn't be lost". I think it's all in the presentation. Some of that may have been better suited in an "Interesting facts" section rather than being the core of the overall article. Basically, the core of every musical band article should be the music. In this case, the music got drowned out by the bio. That's probably the way I should have said it in the first place so I apologize if I offended. I'd say go ahead and put whatever you want in there and you'll probably have other pairs of eyes making sure the point of the article isn't lost. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 10:11 2006-02-02
  • Comment: Huh? The article's been rewritten and even the nominator changed his/her vote. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DragonFable

online RPG in a in an extremely limited beta phase. delete. Melaen 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn game per nom. Ruby 01:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to ArtixEntertainment. Probably notable enough for at least a redirect, but not for inclusion.. Ikusawa 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn game. dr.alf 06:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:ISNOT a crystal ball. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:36, 28 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DMOU

Non-notable web forum; neglected article created by 213.40.131.65 (talk • contribs). Traffic Rank for designermakers.org.uk: 2,706,659. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A History of Designer Makers. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-28 00:51Z

• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Alexa. Ruby 01:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per consensus. -Ikkyu2 07:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn-web forum. --lightdarkness 17:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:37, 28 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, default action is keep. Babajobu 04:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Olive

non notable actor, delete. Melaen 00:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the only mention I find is on his site Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nominator. Tagged. SYCTHOS^talk 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Though he has a imdb entry [3], does not seem to have had any signficant roles in significant films. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Ruby 01:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, per Ohnoitsjamie. Doesn't quite make the cut, but definitely not a speedy. PJM 03:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Eusebeus 04:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but not speedy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite not amazingly notable I suppose but at least it doesn't read like a CV/resume now --TimPope 10:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep current rewritten version. Not as notable as Brad Pitt but verifiable and does no harm. Turnstep 14:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Turnstep Jcuk 16:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep current revision shows notability Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, not really well known but at least notable enough to be on an encyclopedia. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to creator, user:Edwardolive, and wait until a neutral third party writes an article. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What rewrite? Three extremly minor roles do not an article make. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 19:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I just added content from his CV; he's been in a TON of short films.--M@rēino 18:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G.A.N.N

Delete as article on vanity subject. SYCTHOS^talk 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete insufficient context (ie where is this implemented?) Ruby 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The assertion of notability is inadequate to encyclopedic standards. -Ikkyu2 07:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above ComputerJoe 15:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Plug: Please come help develop the inclusion guideline Wikipedia:Notability (software) for articles such as this. --Perfecto 15:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability, hence functionally unverifiable from neutral reliable sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:41, 28 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pen wars

Article is about Star Wars spoof made by two people, which has not yet been released. No relevant Google hits. - squibix 00:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unreleased indy/student film. --Hansnesse 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. I think it was already released, and I have seen the short animation on a humor site (not sure), but it is still non-notable. SYCTHOS^talk 01:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sycthos. Ruby 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not a crystal ball. Or a bulletin board. Daniel Case 04:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 04:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, Bad ideas 08:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, nn non exsistant indie film --lightdarkness 17:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. *drew 18:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. Latinus 19:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only the Lego version is worth its salt. Oh, wait - the ASCII one is cool too :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Child hoax Maltesedog 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Mr. Know-It-All 02:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Katie

Doesn't seem notable, a Google search reveals a lot of general stuff but not much in particular to this "movement". The website is ranked an astonishingly low 626,801 on Alexa and seems mainly to be a vehicle for making money off of CafePress sales. In other words, this whole site is just a non-notable commercial enterprise and this encyclopedia article seems to exist solely to assist those commercial endeavours. Does not belong on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys 01:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. SYCTHOS^talk 01:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruby 01:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I have enough of these nonsense. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 18:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 19:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotion and apparent spam for cafepress nonsense. Wait, don't we have a word for this? Ah yes: vanispamcruftisement]. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, though I think we should have an amalgamated entry for everyone that's ever had a "Free (theirnamehere)!" site. That'd be keen. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 00:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (though I have seen two "Free Katie" t-shirts in the past week!). Joe 04:44, 30 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poser (slang)

Pure dicdef, and Wiktionary already has an article [4]. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-28 01:05Z

• Delete superfluous dicdef. Ruby 01:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. PJM 02:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; quite straightforward as above. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -Ikkyu2 08:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, see above Bad ideas 08:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. *drew 18:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 19:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:54, 28 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 Speedy. --Shanel 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jayme Rubenstein

• This looks like a self-promotion. Delete. Georgia guy 01:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as attack page (CSD A6). Tagged. SYCTHOS^talk 01:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete ugly attack. Ruby 01:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD A6. I smell a consensus building. Ikkyu2 03:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Smell no more. Daniel Case 03:55, 28 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 delete. Babajobu 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primal Diet, Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Article about a non-notable diet fad. "Primal Diet" only gets 6,000 search results on Google, and the creator is similarly doomed to obscurity with only 16,000 hits. If this article is deleted (which I hope it is), I propose this article be re-made with the topic being what "cavemen" ate, not some silly diet. Cyde Weys 01:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete infomercial for fad diet. Ruby 01:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hatred for something different. The article is not very nice looking, but I appreciate the information. It does not deserve to deleted, especially for the reasons given. Terbospeed 03:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Aside from being an ad, God forbid someone gets sick from eating raw food because we didn't get this thing off Wikipedia. Ruby 04:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete for being borderline advertising and Vonderplanitzcruft. I'm sure there's an article of interest in here somewhere but not in its present form. Eddie.willers 04:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the number of hits the determining factor we'd like to set for entries? Is a fad a bad thing? I sought out information on this topic and found this entry. The excuses given to pull this post seem unbeleivable, and certainly not reasons the Wikipedia community wants to give credence to.

• Delete Ah yes, the old australopithecine weight reduction program. Eusebeus 04:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you get E Coli from uncooked pork and then you puke your guts out, for a loss of twelve lbs in only four gut-wrenching days and nights. Ruby 05:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's a real diet and a real fad. Silly, but there you are. Needs cleanup though. Kerowyn 07:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete in present form, seems like an Infomercial type advert. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to raw food diet; the merge, if any, should not yield more than one sentence of text. -Ikkyu2 08:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It may be silly and potentially dangerous, but it is a real theory and verifiable (Google hits, books on Amazon). Turnstep 14:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Rolling in the creator as well, since he has no claim to notability beyond this

• Delete snake oil. User has no contributions on other subjects, only thi, the creator, and adding [...] Aajonus Vonderplanitz, who has cured himself of several diseases, and helped thousands of others to do the same through the use of his Primal Diet to raw food diet. I see no verifiable evidence that this is anything other than another commercial fad diet with no proven medical benefit. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. advertising, nonverifiable, borderline bollocks.--MayerG 21:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per JzG. Stifle 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (both) per Just zis  Guy, you know? and MayerG. Ifnord 14:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am currently eating in this diet and have been following it in the last 4 years. People in Primal Diet mainly discuss inside a Yahoo Group, closed to the outside, and since their diet can be very extreeme often don't look for pubblicity. It is easy to verify what are the claims the Aajonus makes. It is not here the place to verify if the claims are actually true. The two articles need to be extended further.--Pietrosperoni 20:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Above user Pietrosperoni (talk • contribs) has edits only to this AfD and an edit war over effects of heat on enzymes - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Group noise theory

Neologism with zero Google hits and no sources cited in the article. Basically a "theory" saying 'a lot of people in a room at once will talk loudly'. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ruby 01:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A somewhat interesting truism, but unsourced. PJM 03:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. dr.alf 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete —Brim 08:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this anecdotal observation. Marskell 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 19:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete apparent OR. Not to say it is false, but there are no cited sources here and why should I care enough to fix it if the author doesn't? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:03, 28 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chillax

• An article that looks to me like promotion of a coined word as recently as last year. Delete. Georgia guy 01:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. I don't think it deserves a Wikipedia entry but I have heard it used by quite a few people. Wasn't it even on The OC or something? Cyde Weys 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's definitely much more common than the article makes it out to be; I heard it as early as 2002. That said, Delete. Useless. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism. Ruby 01:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Perhaps a good candidate for urbandictionary, but otherwise, delete per WP:NFT 142.151.184.210 02:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above (apart from maybe the transwiki bit, as I don't think they'll want it) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. How is this not a candidate for speedy deletion? A good half of it is nonsense... --Brian1979 22:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's a real word, and fairly popular (75,000+ hits, with several articles) but the etymology is completely wrong and wiktionary already has a definition. Night Gyr 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is incorrect in several places. Perhaps a transwiki would be right, but the article would have to be completely redone. Rory096 00:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aire adaire

Non-notable idiom, google returns zero hits. Weregerbil 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ruby 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Direct quote: originating from a bastardization of the name Astaire, which is a reference to the famous dancer of the same name. Yeah, OK. PJM 03:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 19:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously, being an unsourced neologism, but it reminds me of a carp joke. A man is out to lunch at a restaurant. All the time he is eating people keep going up to the guy at the next table and shaking his hand. He ask the waiter what's goign on, and the waiter says "why, sir, that's Red Adair!" "No kidding!" says the man. When he finishes his food he goes up top the man and says "is it true you're Red Adair?" "Yep." says the man. "You still dancing with Ginger Rodgers?".... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:11, 28 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FTH

Delete as fancruft. SYCTHOS^talk 01:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete World of Warcruft. Ruby 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I wasted a lot of my life on World of WarCraft, so trust me when I say this in no way deserves an encyclopedia article. For The Horde!!! (Sorry about that, I played as a Tauren on a Roleplaying server, we said that a lot) Cyde Weys 04:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. For the Forsaken! -Ikkyu2 08:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. LOL, Ruby. Turnstep 14:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for great justice -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... and the alliance races are far superior... Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I cannot see how this could possibly be of any use or interest to anyone who doesn't spend at least 8 hours a day playing World Of Warcraft. (I spend at least 8 hours a day in front of a computer myself, but not contiguously, and the most of it is actual work (they pay me for writing Java code), contributing to Wikipedia, or reading e-mail. Not some geeky MMORPG.) JIP | Talk 18:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 19:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ruby's coining of the neologism of the week :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:22, 28 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 speedy redirect. SYCTHOS^talk 21:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sleep

Delete as fancruft. I can't seem to find a main article. SYCTHOS^talk 01:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy redirect (nomination withdrawn). Ah, thanks, perfectblue. I'm going to make a redirect, instead, as the AfD process takes so long. By the way, if you still need the info on this page, just user the history section of the article. SYCTHOS^talk 21:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ruby 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per norm. perfectblue97. I'm updating and expanding the clow card page right now, so I'm going to incorperate some of this page into it. I Will leave this section here as per instructions. It should be unnessisary afterwards though. --perfectblue 18:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)perfectblue97
• Delete per nom. Latinus 19:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no single card is notable on its own. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:28, 28 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. Deathphoenix 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Institute for Corporate Culture Affairs

Lack of notability. Google search turned up only 30 pages or so, with Wikipedia ranked second. Bcasterline 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete company that assists other companies to do something. No stand-out achievements. Ruby 06:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. As a non-profit actively engaged in social responsibility and corporate members that include some of the largest companies in Germany (Volkswagen, Deutsche bank, etc.) I see no reason to delete. -- JJay 10:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per WP:CORP. Stifle 16:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A Google search doesn't turn up anything I can see that would satisfy WP:CORP -- no press releases, publications, etc. Seems totally unremarkable to me. Bcasterline 15:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see how those guidelines are applicable given that this is not a company. -- JJay 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • None of the existing notability guidelines are applicable. But this organization is not newsworthy, a criterion which is central to WP:CORP, WP:BIO, WP:WEB, and the general spirit of "notability". Participation by a few companies that are notable does not guarantee notability. Bcasterline 15:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • As none of the guidelines are applicable I feel even more comfortable voting keep for a non-profit active in social causes, especially as corporate respônsibility issues are not exactly front-page news in Germany. -- JJay 16:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Metta Bubble 07:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Despite its name, this organization seems to be the product of some corporate leaders' vanity, but I'm afraid they're notable enough. See http://www.ethniki.gr/en/pr_release_resb.asp?P_ID=348 — Hillel 03:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: Caravaca (below) is right, having looked carefully at the website and at the other Google hits, in the light of his comment, I'm now convinced this is indeed a non-notable one-man vanity "association". Exactly the stuff we shouldn't be fooled by. This one was well disguised though. — Hillel 15:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The individuals named in the article are world-famous and their activities, including this one, are notable. They're also newsworthy, if you read the financial pages. The article itself could use some expansion - I think I'll put a "stub" tag on it if I can figure out the best one to use. -Ikkyu2 03:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looked at this for some time. I don't like the total absence of a German-language equivalent of the same site (which might have been more informative) - suggests they may not actually be doing anything much. I agree with the view that this may simply be a vanity-association created by a well-connected banker who wants to ensure his place in history. Does "notable" mean well-connected or significant? Not significant. Caravaca 13:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• What banker? The article and website clearly state that the Institute was founded by a professor. Also the Institute's seminars and publications are listed on the website, with materials available in both English and German. -- JJay 16:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The "professor" was actually a banker who got himself an honorary professorship (a modern German equivalent of a knighthood or an earldom). And the website itself (or any equivalent) is not in German, which suggests to me that it isn't aimed at Germans, which doesn't make sense if it is in Frankfurt. Normally German websites of this calibre are bi-lingual with the main version being in German. Caravaca 16:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are going a bit far in your statements. Checking on Professor Pohl, I get 20,000 google hits [5]. From what I can tell, he has been a historian for at least 30 years and a Prof since the early 90s. He has written approximately 30 works of financial history [6]. He thus does not seem to be a banker who has gotten himself a title. He also would not seem to need the ICCA to "ensure his place in history". -- JJay 16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I came across a second professor with the same name while researching; you might be getting them mixed up, or I might be wrong, but I've run out of time for this. Caravaca 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per JJay Jcuk 16:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• very weak keep has many notable members, but there is at this stage no evidence it is anything other than a talking shop. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. The members had me on the fence for a bit but what exactly has this boy's club done? "Know the tree by the fruits," as the saying goes, I see no fruit here. Ifnord 19:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 38th Parallel (band)

Non-notable band containing non-notable members. One album was released but the band isn't around anymore, there's a link to a myspace page for a different band containing one of the former members. No articles link to this article, except a category and a disambig. goatasaur 02:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn band. Ruby 02:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Only one album, but Google shows me something [7]. They're also in allmusic.com. PJM 02:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable. Maybe later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hillel (talk • contribs).

Oops, thanks Goatasaur — Hillel 03:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn Eusebeus 05:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' as per PJM Jcuk 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per PMJ Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No longer around, not notable enough during their existance, so not likely to grow in stature. nn-band, delete as per policy doktorb | words 17:14, 28 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 to delete. Ifnord 14:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca J. Nelson

Not notable- not worthy of inclusion

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Professor with no extraordinary accomplishments. Ruby 16:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• After further review, changing to Keep Ruby 05:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ruby. Crunch 17:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 17:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Latinus 18:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*merge with Cornell University if that article exists. Jcuk 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Has published many papers and some books; hundreds of citations. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-23 18:48Z

• Delete – Not (yet) worthy of inclusion. Not the main author of any major publication as far as I can see. — Hillel 03:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — In the light of the information unearthed by Crypticfirefly, I change my vote to "keep". — Hillel 05:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Very much on the edge, I say we go with it... Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Thanks Crypticfirefly --Nick Catalano (Talk) 06:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The lady has lead an internationally-known fight to preserve Peruvian potato varieties, and won a MacArthur "genius grant" in 1998. The article merely needs to be expanded. Crypticfirefly 05:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely. MacArthur genius grant is quite prestigous, and she was profiled in serveral publications of high (enough) readership. I'd like a little more on her own publications, but she looks more notable than your "average professor". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep maybe borderline, but I'll have to side with the inclusionists on this one. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. nn, is essentially an orphaned article, and reads like a "Who's Who" vanity. --Aaron 09:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of MacArthur Fellowship. It's not as prestigious as it used to be and there were rumoured political factors in her selection, but it's still a keep. Crunch 14:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Are the rumors (or at least their existance) of politcal factors sufficiently verifiable to include that info in the article? All I know about this lady is what I read in the cited news stories. Crypticfirefly 18:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know what led to this particular individual winning her grant, but in general, it boggles my mind that a MacArthur Grant in any way constitutes noteworthiness on WP. (See [8] for starters.) --Aaron 18:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Why so? It makes her "more well known" than the average professor, she is arguably a participant in a "newsworthy" event, and many do consider it an indication that her work is somehow exceptional: only a handful of people receive these awards. It's no Nobel prize, but its not like she won a blue ribbon at the county fair for growing a vegetable that resembles G. Gordon Liddy. The article you link is interesting, but it seems to go to the award recipients for the arts, which no doubt are more susceptible to being "political" choices than the academic awards.Crypticfirefly 05:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• keep as per new information Jcuk 15:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per verified MacArthur grant. Turnstep 15:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, Macarthur Fellow. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Macarthur Fellow should meet standard of notability. Calwatch 05:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Lulu O.T.L.E Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep - As per calwatch -- Geo Swan 17:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete: I personally, think this article should be kept, but I know of scientists that have won nobel prizes and haven't been deemed notable enough for an article on wikipedia.(Unsigned edit by User:Helzagood)
  • Perhaps it's simply that nobody has created an article on them yet. Turnstep 22:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So create them. I expect any Nobel Prize winners' articles would survive an AfD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You'd think so, but i wrote an article about a professor at my university, who was a nobel prize winner, and it was deleted as a nn-bioHelzagood 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC).. ps. I don't know if the american community is aware, but the US is different to most other places with respect to professors; in most places, someone that lecturers at a university is not a professor by default, a lecturer becomes a professor upon reaching certain requirements, often, this involves becoming a fellow of their applicable chartered body, and only after years (decades) of dedicated research is this acheived. A professor, in the UK, for example is the highest accolade acheiveable in a lecturers' career; which starts with lectureship, then senior lectureship, then readership/chairmanship, then professorship. Many of my lecturers have been in their job for 20 years and are still only lecturers, this nothing against them, it is just that in the UK, it is a demanding task to climb the status scale. I have it on good understanding, however that in the US, everyone who lectures at a university/college is a professor, which may cause some confusion.Helzagood 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting. I don't see anyone on the Nobel laureates by country under the United Kingdom with red links. Perhaps the list is incomplete? I should think that any article on a Nobel prize winner that notes that fact in the article would not be deleted as "non-notable." Which article that you created was deleted? Crypticfirefly 02:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What was the name of the article? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nstard

Delete. Neologism, no relevant Google results, made up in school one day. Brendan 02:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ruby 03:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Hillel 03:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete —Brim 08:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Slow delete neologism --TimPope 11:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Latinus 19:30, 28 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. Mailer Diablo 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ibat

Delete messy article about a generic learning institute. Mindmatrix 17:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT), now the youngest to became a Deemed University in the country (from their Web site at [9]). Can someone expand on what is the status of a Deemed University in India? Dlyons493 Talk 18:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be an educational institution with branches in 6 different places. Kappa 19:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Currently unverifiable outside its own website. Stifle 00:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That is not correct - there are many authotitative refs for ite.g. [10] Dlyons493 Talk 03:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this really is a non notable school. Ruby 03:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Third level institutions are inherently notable. [11] Dlyons493 Talk 03:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm under the impression that secondary schools or higher are notable enough. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wiki:Schools Jcuk 16:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Kappa 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable school. I've cleaned up the article a little and added a reference for verifiability. Turnstep 16:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. This is a body within the Kalinga Institute for Industrial Training. -Rebelguys2 ^TALK 04:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 16:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was somewhat negligent in the summary I provided, though it appears a few users noticed anyway. This article is about a "school" within Kalinga Institute for Industrial Training. This Institute is not a higher-level education provider, and does not confer degrees to its graduates, but rather is a typical technical institute. See listing of programs offered at KIIT Moreover, the article is inappropriately titled. As far as I see, these are the options:

1. Move to IBAT or Institute of Business Administration and Training if you want this article kept as is
2. Move to Kalinga Institute for Industrial Training if you believe the institute is important, but the school isn't (again - the school is one part of the institute)
3. Delete if you believe that neither the school, nor the institute with which it is affiliated, deserve an article.

As stated in my summary, I believe the latter option makes the most sense. Mindmatrix 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to parent institution. Split out iff it becomes too large. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 01:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable school. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:49, Feb. 3, 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. --maru (talk) contribs 03:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Couch++

Hoax. Attack page. I have recived an email from someone who claims to be the target of the attack asking for it to be removed. << These are lies Geni 03:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense. Ruby 03:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC) makes perfect sense
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Perfecto 03:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) not nonsense

The so called "attack" is not fake and is truth. He is enjoying it.

You did not receive an email from him, cuz he is posting in forums that he enjoys it.

[16 Minutes Ago 03:09 AM]  Couch:           I find it very hilarious

"O RLY, YA RLY, NO WAI!" = "Oh really? Quite really. I dare say no!" says:
I find it very hilarious

It doesn't really matter the article is a hoax and will be removed.Geni 03:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that isn't really fair now is it...Besides Couch++ is a real programming language! Just buy his book from Amazon.com!

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense — Hillel 03:46, 28 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 speedy delete, already on Wiktionary. Mushroom 13:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amongst

This page is a dictdif that already has an entry on Wiktionary. It is unlikely that this subject could be expanded to an encyclopedia article. James084 03:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. — Hillel 03:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete superfluous dicdef. Ruby 03:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given, plus OR and weasel words. Daniel Case 03:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I seem to remember having seen this on AfD before. Re-creation of deleted material, or second nomination of something kept earlier? Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. No deleted edits, not a repost as far as I can tell. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per SD Cat A5. Jdcooper 05:38, 29 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xp fonts displaying other languages

I can't find anything in wp:csd that fits, but there should be. Original research, vanity, advertising, take your pick. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a hacking message board. OR. Daniel Case 03:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a repository for Windoze technical support. Ruby 03:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Changing vote to Keep to hold up my end of a bargain after the article was supported with source material. Ruby 08:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a repository for passing on human knowledge? surely something which is primarily written to help us communicate within our many languages is of use. --Blackest knight 04:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, WP is for passing on human knowledge. Just show me a link to your source so it can be verified as not being original research, and I'll change it to a Keeper. Ruby 04:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[12] Is the basis for this article. however I have simplified it to the essentials- however would it be better placed within this article Windows_XP_CustomizationIf so I will gladly move it.

• Delete. Even if cleaned up, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Vslashg 05:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete it please the essential idea's in it are better suited elsewhere thanks for looking at it. it has been interesting. --Blackest knight 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Original research, unencylopedic, take your pick. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone above Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The talk page now says, nothing exists elsewhere that explains how to manage this in a plain instructive manner.. That sounds like the very definition of original research to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Dbinder 15:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopaedic, per WP:NOT. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:37, 28 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 redirect to ptosis. Babajobu 04:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blepharoptosis

This page already has been tagged as Move to Wiktionary but it already has an entry on Wiktionary. James084 03:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete superfluous dicdef. Ruby 03:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to ptosis; they are synonymous. No merge required as ptosis (a medical sign) is quite comprehensive. -Ikkyu2 04:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Ikkyu2. Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Ikkyu2 Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect seems like a good idea. I am going to tag the article to redirect as suggested. Can we please close this AFD? James084 01:52, 30 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 Userfied to User:Taxman/Biodiesel outline. --Cyde Weys 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biodiesel/Temp

This is not an article; it is an outline. There is already an article for Biodiesel. What is the purpose of this page? James084 03:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete someone's sandbox. Ruby 03:55, 28 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 speedily deleted as short article with little or no context (cat. A1). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babble (disambiguation)

Single-entry disambig page with no blue links; only inbound link is from a page that is itself a stub. Someone meant wellz, I guess. Daniel Case 03:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete no assertion of this album's notability. Ruby 03:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and I will speedy if anyone can produce a valid criterion Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD:A1 short article with little or no context, how does that grab you? Stifle 13:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • To quote Mr Gustafson, "shazaam!"

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 593 (number)

Delete. WP:NUM says we should list numbers up to 200. I see no compelling reason to keep a nearly empty article on what appears to be a relatively uninteresting number. I would have speedily deleted this, but I'm not sure it fits into any of the listed criteria. Fropuff 04:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. — Hillel 04:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep – Changing my vote (in all good faith) to "weak keep" following Ruby's amazing efforts to save the article.
• Keep - It can be proved with mathematical certainty that this number exists. Cyde Weys 04:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd love to see your proof! Kevin 05:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• It can also be proved that my left big toe exists... - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The nominator's perfect description evinces unparalleled eloquence, and I find myself unable to disagree in even the least particular. Ikkyu2 04:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Fight systemic anti-numeral bias in Wikipedia!!! --Cyde Weys 04:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. The improvements to the article clearly assert the notability of 593 as a right prime, a good prime, and a number used in a song with album sales > 5000. -Ikkyu2 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the legitimate successor to 592. Ruby 04:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but it has less hits on Google. — Hillel 04:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Only because of the systemic bias against prime numbers in the media. --Cyde Weys 04:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Take a look at the article now and tell me its not a keeper. Ruby 05:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate Ruby's good faith efforts to improve the article, but no one can change the fact that this is a relatively uninteresting number. I could write just as many "interesting facts" about any given number. Why not write articles on 592 and 594 as well? If someone wants to change the policy to have an article on every number up to 1000, then I'm fine with keeping it. -- Fropuff 07:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, but I find no reason to doubt the existance of said number... Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Are we going to list all the interesting prime numbers? Kevin 05:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the effort to save this one was interesting at least. Ruby 05:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I know WP:NUM is not official policy, but it's a very reasonable policy to go by. Though the page has certainly improved since the initial nomination, 593 does not rise to "remarkable mathematical property" status. Vslashg 06:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Changing my vote to Weak keep. I personally don't like the precedent, but WP:NUM explicitly mentions the page 284 (number), which inarguably has less information than 593 (number). If this article survives AfD, 500 (number) should be fixed to link to it. Vslashg 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Gosh, look at all that good stuff about 593 in the 500 article! Ruby 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Don't forget WP:IAR. Also remember, policies are flexible. I think it's about time to update WP:NUM and include more numbers, don't you? Wikipedia has grown a lot since it was last looked at. Remember, help fight systemic anti-numeral bias on Wikipedia! --Cyde Weys 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Do forget WP:IAR; it is an escape hatch for emergencies. This is not one. 284 (number), like 641 (number), is the smallest integer in a quite sparse class. Septentrionalis 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Let's make more number articles! We all know that Wikipedia has continuum-many bytes of storage.  :) Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I hate to resort to the Pokémon test, but... if freaking Golbat has its own article, freaking 593 deserves its own article. Not a ton of stuff is more notable than a number, right? Matt Yeager 07:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was expecting to vote delete before I read it, but the article won me over. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A list of properties does not an interesting number make. That's to say, at least not significantly more interesting than any other number. There are no boring numbers! If we don't follow WP:NUM on this it would set an extremely bad precedent. Zunaid 14:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete thre are infinite numbers -Doc ^ask? 15:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So what if there are infinite numbers? There's only one 593! I don't see your point. Help fight systemic anti-numeral bias on Wikipedia! --Cyde Weys 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a prime number, the article has a good description of its characteristics. Afonso Silva 15:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per I, the mathie. --Perfecto 16:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep its a number with interesting properties, and the article is actually quite fun. Fun. Are we allowed that on Wikipedia? Jcuk 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - an interesting prime number JoJan 16:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - article asserts the subject's notability as a prime number, which has been verified -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - there are infinitely many prime numbers. If that's enough for an article, then why not just turn AfD into a Sieve of Eratosthenes? Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 19:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Seeing as how there are now over 900K articles I don't think it could hurt to have a few dozen more articles on prime numbers with interesting characteristics. All of this is patently verifiable (actually, provable), which makes it the best encyclopedic content possible. --Cyde Weys 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep after viewing the article establishing its notability. Good job. I might just even remove the stub tag from it. Turnstep 16:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless. Ashibaka tock 20:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep : Prime number, has some information from other sources. An "infinitely large" prime would NOT work because who has written an article about a 10 digit prime? Calwatch 05:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment to all keepers using the "interesting" rationale: (I hope I'm not wasting my time with this, please read and consider carefully). There are infinitely many prime numbers. There are infinitely many prime numbers with "interesting" properties (a subjective measure in any case). There are infinitely many prime numbers with more "interesting" (and "more interesting") properties than 593. Lastly, Wikipedia is not infinite. We delete articles all the time on the basis of being non-notable ← and by this definition this number satisfies being non-notable (as I've just demonstrated, I admit my proof wasn't mathematically rigorous). Please consider whether "interesting" is a justifiable reason for keeping this article per what has been shown here. Thanks! Zunaid 11:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: well obviously Wikipedia needs a lot more disk space so we can keep articles for this number, as well as many other interesting numbers. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 19:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Even though I claim to be a deletionist, I find waiving around Wikipedia is not infinite to be just as annoying as waving around Wikipedia is not paper. In fact, to quote the former guideline, "While it is true that Wikipedia is not infinite, it must also be said that deleting an article does nothing to reduce the amount of space taken up by that article. All deleted content on Wikipedia remains stored on the servers." This particular number isn't any old integer, it has an assertion of significance, and it has a decent article written about it. I can't ask much more of it. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete (and I'm an inclusionist). There are an infinite number of primes, about half of them are "good" (as the list will show) - a feature which is in any case interesting only in a small context not mentioned here. Septentrionalis 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable. Its sometimes useful to look at these things. Think of this as an OLEIS for integers. Comment to all deleters: OLEIS is the "On-line Encyclopaedia of Integer sequences", its considered to be an important resource for math. Sure, there are an infinite number of sequences, (and then some), but it is very useful to be able to look them up, if faced with one that you have in front of you, and you don't know what it is. For grins, check out the OLEIS 100K party -- that's right, they are 1/10 'th the size of all of WP, and 10 x larger than all WP math articles put together. linas 01:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Notable number. Important for keeping 592 and 594 from bumping into each other. Good rewrite by Ruby saves the article. Wikipedia is not paper, so why delete a perfectly good article? Herostratus 08:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. SYCTHOS^talk 20:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stale Bread

Delete. Google searches show this to be a very likely hoax. 1 2 3Vslashg 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as hoax. Daniel Case 04:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax, two greatest of stale bread LPs indeed.
• Delete per nom; article creator also tried to remove AfD tag from article. Website seems authentic enough, still, probably not notable enough for article inclusion... Ikusawa 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete but move to BJAODN first... Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The group may or may not be real. Either way, it's not notable. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you determine what is notable?FrankGianni 05:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The document WP:BAND describes in detail what makes a musical group "notable" by Wikipedia standards. Vslashg 05:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete The authors changed the page removing the hoax content, but putting in its place a link to an entirely non-notable band page. We are now in A7 territory. Vslashg 05:20, 28 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. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurchel Jacks

Extremely minor figure in JKF assassination (LBJ's driver that day), if article is true (I'm not sure ... was LBJ in Dallas at the time of the assassination, as this seems to suggest? I somehow recall that he flew there that night to pick up JFK's body). Doesn't seem notable. Daniel Case 04:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but cleanup. This guy just seems notable to me. He describes seeing JFK's body (if those statements were really his). I think the JFK assassination was sooo notable that it kind of made everyone around it notable by proxy. Cyde Weys 04:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but summarize his statement rather than putting it in full. Ruby 04:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite per Ruby Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd say that someone in the motorcade who gave a first-hand description of the events is far from an extremely minor figure. Turnstep 17:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the JFK assassination. It says "most notable as" but it seems that he is "notable only as" the driver. Statement text belongs in Wikisource. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Is anything in this article true? Did he exist? Did he say this? While nothing here screams "fake", WP has been fooled about the Kennedy assassination before. There needs to be a citation of verifiable sources. MayerG 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a hoax: I did google and check verifiability for myself (as I do for all AfD articles), FWIW. Agree that it needs refs. Turnstep 01:54, 29 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 speedy delete. Coffee 05:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syck

Per article, a word made up by the guy who wrote the article. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. I don't think this word could ever be verified. --W.marsh 04:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Can we get an admin to speedy this? Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• This fits under a speedy delete criteria? --W.marsh 05:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if it officially falls under the CSD, but looks like common sense delete to me. I've deleted it. Coffee 05:17, 28 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mizta-Nui

Delete "Mizta-Nui" does not exist, not even in the fictional world of Bionicle. In short, it's a hoax. Drakhan 04:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete toycruft. Ruby 05:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 19:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, yes. --Lockley 08:36, 29 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Have A Nice Life

Usual song and dance... article about a webcomic, doesn't assert meeting WP:WEB, seems to be created by someone closely connected to the webcomic, Wikipieda is not self promotion. --W.marsh 04:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vslashg 05:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystal ballism and non-notability Ruby 05:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Btw, ballism is a synonym for hemiballismus, a neurological phenomenon seen with destruction of the subthalamic nucleus of Luys, and shouldn't be asserted lightly. -Ikkyu2 06:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 19:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 02:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Raggaga 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted, patent nonsense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Chuck Norris

Delete This non-notable nonsense has been posted again. See the first AfD. Vslashg 04:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete before I up-Chuck. Ruby 05:37, 28 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. Johnleemk | Talk 16:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kidspiration & Inspiration (computer program)

The story here is the same as with Inspiration for handhelds which is on its way to get deleted as spam/nn. Created by the same user who works at the producers marketing office. Producers website has alexa rank of about 65,000.

• Delete - Renata 05:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This software is used in schools and, gosh, schools are automatically a speedy keep Ruby 05:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Just a comment: People use many things at schools. Like textbooks. Does every textbook deserve an article? And these two are blatant adverts. Renata 06:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Reads too much like an advertisement; I agree with Renata's points as well. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite if needed. Just because it was started by someone who self-identifies with the company does not mean the article is automatically invalid. Lots of relevant google hits for "kidspiration software" establishes notability. Turnstep 17:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Inspiration Software rings a bell, they're fairly notable. Passes google test as well. Englishrose 18:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's actually pretty notable in elementary schools in my area. SYCTHOS^talk 20:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• very very weak keep because in the end it probably is notable, but the creator 'does not self-identify as an employee, I tracked that information down (I think others have too), but the creator has never admitted it to my knowledge; the whole thing needs to be verified by an expert (which I am not) for subtle bias. Is there a template for articles created by agents of the subject which have not been externally verified? Incidentally, I'd be equally happy with a merge & redirect to Inspiraiton Software, as the software and the maker do not seem to be divisible in any meaningful sense. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Inspiration Software. Alternatively, these two programs are pretty similar - perhaps find a way to merge the two together? -Rebelguys2 ^TALK 04:33, 29 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 delete. Even the article screams its non-notability. Johnleemk | Talk 16:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Tracy

Article about non-notable social worker. I think the assertion of notability is weak enough to support a speedy delete, but I also think it's close enough to the line not to speedy it unilaterally. —Cleared as filed. 05:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn bio. Ruby 05:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete orphaned article on a non-notable person.Homey 08:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - An internet search will reveal that Tracy is much more than a social worker. He is a prominent activist anad was a leading member of the BC NDP Socialist Caucus. Users should find it telling that user Homey votes to delete definitions of people on the same side of the political spectrum as himself, yet to keep definitions of those on the far-right, who are often even less notable, such as James Scott Richardson.
  • (the above was posted by User:Dogmatic)
  • Hm, seems the fact that Tracy was once a member of the steering committee of the BC NDP's "Socialist Caucus" (a group of, say, a dozen people) is of such significance you didn't even bother to mention it in the article.Homey 13:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Just borderline on notability... He did seem to be associated with some borderline notable things, but just not quite enough Ikh (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The information has not been fully filled out yet Imstillhere 15:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Given their editing patterns, writing styles and actual edits, I suspect User:Imstillhere and User:Dogmatic are the same person. Checkuser has been requested. If this is the case, voting twice is a violation of wikipedia policy that merits banning.Homey 17:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I can assure you that Imstillhere and Dogmatic are not the same user and that checkuser will not return anything that will get me banned. Just because both users take the same stance, it doesn't mean they are the same people. Imstillhere 20:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete notability-by-proxy. Open to persuasion. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sorry but doing good work, and being a member of a few local committees does not make a person notable. [13] "Tony Tracy has very recently joined our staff team as our new Administrative Assistant. Tony comes to us from Vancouver, where he worked as a tenants’ rights advocate and Community Legal Worker, as well as being involved in the fight for affordable housing & against homelessness and poverty. He has been active in broad social justice movement campaigns, including campaigns around poverty & wages issues, anti-globalization, anti-racism and anti-war." Obina 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence that subject is notable. CJCurrie 01:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Subject is notable. But the level of information presented isn't. The article needs to be expanded. Perhaps needs an "Article needs to be expanded" template? --Dogbreathcanada 21:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How do you know the subject is notable if there isn't any notable information in the article?70.28.159.194 02:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Because I live in the area. So I'm privy to information not in the article. It's my vote. Go debate elsewhere. --Dogbreathcanada 07:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      • If you have information of the subject's notability you should add it to the article. We can only judge the notability of the topic on the information contained within the article. I don't see how domicile is relevent - do you actually know of Tony Tracy and his notability? If you're privy to information then share it, otherwise we have nothing to go on.Homey 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN Maustrauser 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as attack and nonsense. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pi4 Maala

Delete Article is largely nonsense VooDooChild 05:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete bullocks. Ruby 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nonsense. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax/nonsense. Doesn't meet WP:CSD. -Ikkyu2 09:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as an attack on Todor Zhivkov. Turnstep 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - rubbish. Latinus 19:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Eew. SYCTHOS^talk 20:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax and attack. Hang on a minute... There, it's gone. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:01, 28 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. Johnleemk | Talk 16:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antonio Sciortino

From WP:PNT, been there since December 28. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Created Nov 15, and listed as a Work in Progress for translation to English. But it does not appear that the original creator has returned since that day. Most of the page is in Maltese. - TexasAndroid 18:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

-hi, i am the original translator, i am extremely busy at the moment but i have my eye on this and will be able to resume the translation very shortly, thanks. Yurigerhard 13:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's past time to take this article to AfD, and Yurigerhard hasn't returned. I'd be inclined to give this one more time, seeing how it's half-translated. If someone else wants to move this to AfD though, go right ahead. Alternately, the Maltese text could get moved to the article's talk page, and we could move this entry to the "needs more work" section... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that, if it does get deleted, a copy first be placed as a subpage to the creator's user page, and a note to the effect place on his talk page. That way, if/when he does return to it, he has easy access to the latest version to resume from. - TexasAndroid 20:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nominator abstains Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and dispose per TexasAndroid's suggestion. Ruby 05:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• userfy and delete per TexasAndroid. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The top third is in English. He seems a notable artist. It seems fine to delete the bottom part that is in Maltese - but that does not take AFD agreement. If the translater wants to keep going he or she can find the foreign text in edit history. In fact, I shall boldly do so now.Obina 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The article is now an English language stub about a notable artist.Obina 21:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I made a note on the talk page. If this survives AfD, a note should be left for the author with a permalink to the appropriate piece of the edit history. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as he is a notable artist, and the article is in English. Carioca 02:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as it's making good progress to becoming a rather decent article. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The End of All Evil

Author, book or ISBN pulls no Amazon or Google result. No context either. -- Perfecto 05:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a book launch announcement service. --Perfecto 05:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete possible self-promotion, the article's author's only edits are for this article and the image. Ruby 05:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ISBN number is valid, book is in production. --Gravical 06:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, in that case zap it because WP is not a crystal ball. Ruby 06:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is written, the book is being manufacturered -- are you telling me that it can only be posted if it is listed on amazon.com? --Gravical 06:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No, but it's hard to judge a book's notability by sales when it hasn't even hit the street yet. Ruby 06:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay -- so when it is ready for sale, then it can be listed? That is fair enough, except that someone may just as easily flag and call it "self-promotion" --Gravical 06:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it has to be verifiable and notable first. Wikipedia is not a book launch announcement service. --Perfecto 15:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete obviously. Gravical, what is your association with this book please? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Clue: Who owns gravical.com? --Perfecto 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• "Published: 2005?" Doesn't look like it was. Can't see any reason to keep so Delete. Jxan3000 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: unreferenced, unverifiable ➥the Epopt 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki and delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dasalan at tocsohan

From WP:PNT, been there since January 14. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Indonesian maybe. Starts like this: "Ang tanda nang cara- i- cruz ang ipangadya mo sa amin Panginoon naming Fraile sa manga bangkay naming, sa ngalan nang Salapi at nang Maputing binte, at nang Espiritung Bugaw. Siya naua" Kappa 07:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not Indonesian, although that's what xcre(?) guesses. Given that it seems to have some vaguely Spanish words, including a heading with the word 'Santa' in it, perhaps Tagalog or a Philipine language, or one of the Timorese languages?? If it isn't translated within a few days, we'll just have to delete it, I guess. --Sepa 22:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I believe it is Tagalog, and I get the impression that the subject is related to music. --Alexanderj 21:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• It is DEFINITELY in Tagalog. It is also known by another spelling, Dasalan at Tuksuhan (I created a redirect). Searching for this alternative spelling yields more results in Google. It was written by Marcelo_H._del_Pilar --TheBoompsy 06:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be transferred to Wikisource? --Jojit fb 04:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nominator abstains Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if we could find out what it means, the way it carries an author name on top strongly implies it's WP:OR. Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Lukas. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Lukas, and if nobody translated it within two weeks, chances are it's not up to much. If we have a Tagalog wikipedia, we could transwiki there. Stifle 13:59, 30 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 Speedy deleted Attack page/nonsense (and consensus here) Sherool (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pengduk

Delete. WP:BALLS. Vslashg 05:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Probably speediable - The Pengduk is a hybrid of both penguin and duck forms, the latter being mostly prevalent in the buttocks area....Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 05:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Ruby 05:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's nonsense alright, but not patent nonsense. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's patent leather nonsense so shiny I can see up its skirt. Ruby 06:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Well it's clearly Complete Bollocks, as the nominator points out. But WP:BALLS is NOT a criterion for speedy deletion, unfortunately. My point was that while it should be deleted, it doesn't fall into the (rather narrow) definition of Patent Nonsense required for CSD G1. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. BALLS. Ikkyu2 06:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - trash. Latinus 19:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Currently, there is only one Pengduk in existence, and so he is considered an extinct species. He resides in downtown Toronto . Speedy delete as attack page. Pilatus 04:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fonts by Michael Hagemann, Michael Hagemann, Font Mesa, FontMesa

Indiscriminate collection of data, advertising, unencyclopedic. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ruby 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising/vanity. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eusebeus 15:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Latinus 19:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing which can't be covered in the article on Michael Hagemann, which we should probably have if verifiable information can be provided that he is the creator of notable typefaces. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that the author of the articles has moved List of fonts by Michael Hagemann to Michael Hagemann, and Font Mesa to FontMesa, and stripped off the AfD tags. I have restored them and admonished. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:23, 29 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 redirect. SYCTHOS^talk 20:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leonardo Leonardo's Return And Dante Has A Very Important Desicion To Make

Spelled incorrectly, also title is incorrect tiZom_{(the man)} 06:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• The very first edit was a Redirect to Leonardo Leonardo Returns And Dante Has An Important Decision To Make, which is what I'm recommending. Ruby 06:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never nominated anything before. Do we typically keep misspellings? Or do we delete? There are actually two misspelled redirects in this case (one of them my fault!) tiZom_{(the man)} 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Go do RC patrol one of these days. There's 10 times more crud being written per hour than we can delete, so it's often better to just do a redirect and be done than have something sit here for five days and be picked apart. Ruby 06:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per Ruby. A likely mispelling indeed. — Hillel 06:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Ruby -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:39, 28 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 delete. Friday (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln County Sex Dolls

1 album with only three sales. Sorry, guys, come back when you're more notable. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 06:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, just looking at this, I never knew Wikipedia had a restriction on the number of albums sold before a band was allowed in the database. I've seen entries on Wikipedia that have been much more insignificant and yet stay, I fail to see the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.176.71.97 (talk • contribs).

Take a look at WP:MUSIC....Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 06:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Because their only released album moved three units, at least that is what I gather from the article when it says about their second one, "The album is predicted to be released around the 3rd week of Feburary, 2006. Hopefully we'll get more than 3 sales." Ruby 06:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Three copies? Hell's bells and buggy wheels - my album sold the best part of 100 times that many copies. Either delete or I want an article! Grutness...wha? 08:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats you fucking award-winning gituarist, go make a song over me and kill yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ash link (talk • contribs).

• Delete see WP:MUSIC. not even close. Bad ideas 08:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Eusebeus 15:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Turnstep 17:54, 28 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 speedy delete for the third time. -- RHaworth 08:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thaddeusism

Made up/obscure religion. I would have speedied but the author and "another person" (meatpuppet?) attested to the article's veracity on the talk page. Seems very silly. Broken S 06:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense too unfunny for BJAODN. Direct quote: Research began in the late 1950’s when a piece of Thaddeus’s pubic hair was found in a meteorite that had fallen and crashed in Antarctica. U.S. scientists had gone to work to extract the DNA from the piece of hair that measured an incredible 17 inches. Vslashg 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Ruby 06:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - CorbinSimpson 06:56, 28 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. —Cleared as filed. 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of North American football nicknames (2nd nomination)

Centralized repository for team nicknames, which would be better off in the articles for each team. Plus, has American football POV even as it claims to serve Canadian football (there are no references to Canadian football in the article at time of nomination). kelvSYC 06:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for reasons given in the first AfD. Notably, List of hockey nicknames and List of U.S. Presidential nicknames set a precedent for this article. The best way to fix the nominator's POV concerns is to add Canadian football team nicknames to this article. Vslashg 06:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent as pointed out by Vslashg. Ruby 06:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. Nicknames belong in the main article; lists of them are not encyclopedic and the precedent of other listcruft does not make this any better. Eusebeus 15:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as per Vslashg Jcuk 16:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencylcopedic list. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No, it's an almanac style list, and almanac style articles are explicitly allowed. CalJW 03:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedents listed and per CalJW. Youngamerican 04:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. For the same reasons I gave in the last AfD that closed ten days ago as keep. I see no new arguments here that justify a renom at this early date. Beides divisiveness, what is gained by continually nominating the same articles? -- JJay 14:44, 29 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 speedy delete. Punkmorten 11:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recognized accreditation associations

I created this category, but then realized there was already a category called "school accreditors" that better suits the group. Arbustoo 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. From the creator of the page. Arbustoo 06:46, 28 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purgatorium

Non-notable pro-bulimia "community"/forum, take your pick. We don't need this nonsense on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys 06:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. What happens on LJ stays on LJ. - CorbinSimpson 06:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete two nn forums and a dicdef. Ruby 06:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Corbin. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ecause, as Cyde say, we just don't need this nonsense. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:10, 28 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OutSourcingplans

Ad-copy for non-notable website (ranks 61K on Alexa). Cyde Weys 06:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ruby 08:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if only there were a speedy delete for NN adverts. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - self-promotion. Latinus 19:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanispamcruftisement. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:12, 28 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 redirect; too inconsequential to merge, although anyone who disagrees is free to merge it anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 16:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meximelt

Nonnotable Kerowyn 07:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete run of the mill fast food menu item. Ruby 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as above. Metta Bubble 15:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Latinus 19:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• McMerge junkfoodcruft to Taco Bell. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Taco Bell. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Changing vote to merge per Just zis  Guy, you know?. The seperate article seemed rather trivial. Kerowyn 00:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Not-so-notable item, but deserves a mention and a redirect. Youngamerican 04:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge... this isn't the chalupa. Calwatch 05:42, 29 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McFeast

delete Non-notable Kerowyn 07:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete run of the mill fast food menu item. Ruby 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I didn't know anything about this before the article was created... I think it should be included Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep The Big Mac and Whopper have decent pages, though I suppose you have to draw a line somewhere... OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with McDonald's menu items. Depends on how notable it is as to whether it's merged or kept. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge with McDonald's menu items. Metta Bubble 15:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or fail that merge per above. Does not require its own article. Eusebeus 15:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• McMerge as above. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• changing vote to merge per Metta Bubble. --Kerowyn 00:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Metta Bubble. No need to delete the redirect. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:13, 29 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; keep. This defaults to keep, so please don't cite it to support or oppose a future merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McChicken

delete Non-notable Kerowyn 07:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete run of the mill fast food menu item. Ruby 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Menu item from very notable restuarant...not sure if there is a specific policy on this. Foodcruft? OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with McDonald's menu items. Depends on how notable it is as to whether it's merged or kept. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable piece of food.SoothingR 11:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. And a comment: McDonald's menu items links to a number of other articles like McRib, etc. If this article is deleted/merged, so should be done for all these other articles. - Liberatore(T) 14:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge with McDonald's menu items. Metta Bubble 15:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment According to the GFDL, those are incompatible votes. Merges must be accompanied with a redirect for attribution reasons. No biggie, I have casted the same vote before i was made aware of that technicality. Youngamerican 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or fail that merge per above. Does not require its own article. Eusebeus 15:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The menu article already has McChicken listed and does not require trivial facts, such as when it was created (McCruft). SYCTHOS^talk 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a real food. C'mon, the history on its page is interesting, and if you tried to put that level of depth all in the main McDonald's menu article it simply wouldn't fit. Hundreds of millions of McChickens have been eaten ... that definitely establishes notability. Fight systemic bias against lower-class foods on Wikipedia! Cyde Weys 21:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• McMerge per Metta Bubble. Too many articles on McD items will bloat the database and cause bit circulation disorders. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with McDonald's menu items as suggested above. A couple of items referenced on this page (Big Mac, Chicken McNuggets) have enough content and cultural significance to deserve their own articles, but all the other McDonalds food stubs should be merged as well. Vslashg 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• changing vote to merge per Metta Bubble. --Kerowyn 00:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge into Chicken nuggets --GeLuxe 02:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this sandwich that is notable in and of itself. Youngamerican 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentI gave the article a cleanup for quality and structural purposes. The revision is meant to make this a respectable article for a notable food item that is partially responsible for any future heart disease from which I may suffer. Youngamerican 05:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable enough because it has regional variations and is one of McDonald's best selling products (unlike the McFeast above). We have an article on the Big Mac, so the McChicken should qualify. Calwatch 05:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, cultural phenomenon, sourcing countless late-night debates as to whether "McChicken" means it doesn't actually hafta be real chicken. Also, the average Man On The Street has heard of McChicken, but probably hasn't heard of our other "notable" subjects. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, keep, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun.--M@rēino 18:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Elsie

• delete. this linguist is not notable enough Mayumashu 07:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I added a bunch of books he's published. Scholarly titles of presumably limited circulation, but legitimate in-print titles. Publishing several books makes notable, comfortably. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Thanks Lulu Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Lulu. Ruby 08:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

that helps. now there just needs an intro paragraph to say why he is encyclopedic, not where he went to uni Mayumashu 08:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. It definitely needs cleanup... but vote the topic, not the article as it exists. I had never heard of him, but it didn't take too much work to get book info from Amazon. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Several books with respectable publishers. u p p l a n d 08:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I will vote to keep (although it seems unnecessary since my vote will likely be outweighed) if Millosh could explain why this fellow deserves an encyclopedia entry. (vote withdrawn) Is he a notable expert on Albanian culture and ethno-linguistics? The publications do not seem impressive enough to warrant an article for their author. Eusebeus 15:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Six books (listed, there are a couple others) doesn't seem notable?! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets normal standards for significance. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems to meet WP:BIO Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Robert Elsie is one of the most important contemporary albanologist. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 01:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Looking at his publications on google scholar, I note his work has been cited by others a total of seven times. I don't think merely publishing lots of books ought to make one notable; the books themselves have to meet some threshold of notability (which is why we don't count vanity presses). In this case, with seven citations, it doesn't look like any reasonable threshold is met to me. --Pierremenard 03:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empire Earth Glitches

Completing an unfinished nomination (I am not the nominator). Personally, I'd see this as a candidate for merger with Empire Earth. If kept, it will need recapitalising. Grutness...wha? 07:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP is not a place to archive game glitches. Ruby 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and move, if you so desire Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the sort of thing you'd expect to see on GameFAQs, not Wikipedia. A merge might be in order if it's really that important. --Indi ^{[ talk ]} 16:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. --maru (talk) contribs 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, merge, and redirect per above. SYCTHOS^talk 20:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since not only is this an unencyclopaedic topic, the plural in the title is at present unjustified by the content. Trivial cruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:21, 28 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 delete. Arguments for delete outweigh 2 keep votes that didn't really defend this subjects notability, and one that only weakly did. —Cleared as filed. 04:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zhai Zhenhua

delete her only notable claim is writing her autobiography which is only gets 230 total hits on a (American) yahoo search Mayumashu 07:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep She was a Red Guard who saw the light and escaped to the capitalist world. Ruby 08:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • translation: "She was a traitor to the revolution who succumbed to imperialist propaganda". Please try to maintain a NPOV... (no vote) Grutness...wha? 23:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep borderline notability; book is still for sale at Amazon, three reviews. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 08:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Three reviews on Amazon is flatlining. Metta Bubble 15:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete simply not notable enough to warrant encycopedic treatment. Eusebeus 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless some rather more tangible claim to notability can be found Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn author, her book is ranked 676,763 on amazon.com. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep - The cultural revolution was important, affected 1 billion people. It remains important, and poorly documented. We need to remember that the wikipedia is an International effort, not a purely USAian effort. The wikipedia should not selectively cover USA topics in greater detail than it covers topics from other nations. -- Geo Swan 17:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the Cultural Revolution was important, but every Red Guard does not rate an article. This article does nothing to improve our understanding of Chinese culture, but is merely vanity. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:57, 30 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 speedy deleted as lacking context. Plus the numerous tags were many times the size of the article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gopalnathan swamy

Appears to be nonsense. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 07:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Ruby 08:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless contextualised and expanded. Why did the author give it a linguistics tag? Dlyons493 Talk 11:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nonsense. Latinus 19:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Crap article with no context. SYCTHOS^talk 20:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AquaRO

AquaRO was a small Ragnarok Online website that only existed for four months. -- Kjkolb 08:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete shut down after reaching an all time high of 42 users (there's that number again). Ruby 08:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 42 users? You are kidding, yes? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:25, 28 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; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite it to support/oppose a future merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ohio second congressional district other candidates

A bunch of deleted articles have been recreated in this space, which sort of makes a mockery of the term "deletion". I think, in the 200+ years that it's been a state, more than these hanbdful of insignificant fellows have run for representative of Ohio's second district. Some of them may have even been nominated. Not these guys though. -R. fiend 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Ohio second congressional district election, 2005. I'm betting some of the photos are copyvios as welll. Crunch 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and greatly reduce. They lost; they are no longer notable. And get rid of images if they're copyvio. Daniel Case 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, one image (Katz) is clear copyvio; Austin is likely as the page claims it's from the Cincinnati Enquirer. I don't have the time to deal with this right now, alas. Daniel Case 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Also rans at the state house level are non-encyclopedic. Ruby 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, this is at the federal level. --Calton | Talk 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Looks like an attempt to preserve individual articles already AFD'ed. See:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Austin (politician) (keep)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas E. Mink (delete)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Morgan (Ohioan) (delete)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Stanley Katz 2 (delete)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Smith (delete)

And considering the one "keep" result had 8 deletes, 2 keeps, and 1 merge, one has to wonder how the closing admin came to the peculiar decision to call it a "keep". --Calton | Talk 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete introduction demonstrates lack of notability --Ajdz 06:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The people who appear here had their original articles deleted. One suggestion was creating a "minor candidates" page, which I have done. And now I find that's up for deletion to. This page exists as part of my effort to supply a complete record of the congressional race in the Second District. PedanticallySpeaking 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Complete? You call this complete? You left out the staff members of each of the candidates, as well as the poll workers, the locations of the polling places, as well as details of each of the concession speeches. Far from complete it seems to me. -R. fiend 19:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• This clearly needs more discussion, considering PedanticallySpeaking's explanation. Johnleemk | Talk 08:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, valuable step towards comprehensive coverage of congressional elections. Kappa 10:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete election-cruft that does not require mention in an ancyclopedia. Kappa, when will you be writing up that comprehensive election coverage for every single election ever held (don't forget the 1285 election for the Council of Ten in Venice)? This sets an untenable and unsustainable precedent. Eusebeus 15:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone produces verifiable election coverage for the Council of Ten in Venice 1285, I will certainly not betray our donors by voting to delete it. Kappa 18:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as good faith action by creator to take advice about merging the previous AfD'ed articled into one. Turnstep 18:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material (CSD G4). Tagged. SYCTHOS^talk 20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete acknowledging that this is in good faith, it is still the case that none of these people are notable beyond having failed to be elected to an office, which means (per WP:BLP) that none of them are notable. Sorry, the c ompleteness argument is not persuasive: simply listing the losers in the article for the election fulfills the encyclopaedic purpose of this article. The problem with losing candidates is thet most information on them comes from their own camp, and no further information is released after the election. Information on such people is generally functionally unverifiable from reliable sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreations of previously-AfD'd articles. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Crunch and deal with copyvio as required. No reason to wipe out information on this important election. -- Mwalcoff 01:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, previously deleted articles. (Also see Just zis  Guy, you know?'s comments on notability and lack of verifiability.) - Randwicked Alex B 03:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep - as per Kappa. Keep necessary to show good faith to Pedantically speaking, as well as being a good idea in and of itself. -- Geo Swan 17:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete as non-notable and non-completable, or possible rename/move/merge. It's impossible and/or rather uninteresting to cover all candidates of all elections of all time everywhere, even if only on national level. If one wants to do it anyway, there are other places to do so. - Magnus Holmgren 23:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - completely harmless inclusion - somebody somewhere at some point might want to know about these people, and who knows some of them might go on to do other things in which case we have the starting point for a future article if we leave this in; if you've voted delete on this, really, haven't you got anything better to do? SP-KP 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, for some of us, voting on deletion is our main contribution to Wikipedia. So no. - Randwicked Alex B 01:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Personally, I think one of the biggest weaknesses of the wikipedia is the {afd} procedure. When I look at some of the nominations which generate discussion what I find is the same bunch of regulars. And many of those regulars show no interest in following procedure, or even giving the articles a fair reading.
• Some of the regular habitues have personal axes to grind. Some regulars use the {afd} fora to suppress information that they regard as "anti-American", without regard to its verifiability or how neutrally it is expressed.
• Many regulars base their vote on whether they regard the article as POV. Some even base their nomination on their opinion that an article is POV, even though the wikipedia deletion policy says that the correct response to a perception that an article shows a biased POV is to raise that issue on the article's talk page.
• I think the wikipedia would be improved if steps were taken so that there was a monthly cap on how many times per month people could vote in the {afd} fora. This would rein in those regulars who use the fora as a venue to trot out their personal prejudices. Regretably, this would also cap those responsible wikipedians who come regularly to the {afd} fora, and actually read the articles nominated for deletion, and make an independent choice every time they vote. But that would be better than the current situaiton. -- Geo Swan 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD:G4 recreation of deleted material. Stifle 14:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• See also the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Fossett. PedanticallySpeaking 17:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article created as a compromise that was suggested. Jcuk 20:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Article created as a compromise, in order to help Wikipedia's coverage of American politics. This article should probably use a better title, however, especially since this office is up for election again in less than a year. Academic Challenger 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is still a hotly contested seat on the Republican side; Schmidt may face some of these candidates again this year. --JamesB3 02:22, 31 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 01:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will Bigger

Reads like a vanity piece. 23 yr old who has worked as a congressman's intern, as an unsuccessful campaign manager for a defeated candidate (who does not have a page) and intends to run as a candidate for a county election this year --Porturology 08:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Aaron 10:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 14:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Ruby 14:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn bio with a touch of TMI. Turnstep 18:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Even if elected will not meet WP:BLP. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Claims of being a politician. College politics don't count here. Also, somebody should list the Anne Fischer article for deletion, they were both authored by the same person, at the same time, her claims to notability being only that she lost the election this "bigger" characters says he ran. garbage. Batman2005 05:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Lazerwitz

Article does not establish importance of this individual. Delete. —Brim 09:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless expanded to establish notability. Dlyons493 Talk 11:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Brim abakharev 12:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 14:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Ruby 14:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Latinus 19:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as notability not established. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:35, 28 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 speedily deleted as non-notable bioggraphy - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Rossini

Biography does not establish the person's importance. Delete. —Brim 09:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as CSD A7. Sarah Ewart 11:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Dlyons493 Talk 12:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 14:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE The owner of a huge constrution supply company is just as important as an article about Bill Gates or Donald Trump. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.71 (talk • contribs) .
• Speedy delete per CSD A7. Tagged. Rossini, Inc. is not a huge company. SYCTHOS^talk 21:03, 28 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Willco and Donnie Ripatti

Author calls himself Beardedmonk but he is probably too young to have much of a beard. OK, kid you're pulling my beard - give us some references otherwise we will delete these as hoax - but keep them yourself for your creative writing classes at Pacific Collegiate School. -- RHaworth 09:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a work of fiction. Cannot find any of the following with google: person, his sidekick, their company, revolutional steam engine invented by our protagonist, purpotedly-still-existing school founded by our hero, book cited as source, the other book cited as source. What is this, a bad book report on Atlas Shrugged? Weregerbil 14:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax, this person could not be "always fascinated by trains" if he was born decades before trains. Ruby 14:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, and likely hoax. — TheKMan^talk 20:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete apparent hoaxes. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, though being born in an orphanage does have some notability to it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:43, 29 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 speedy delete

[edit] Croberries

Moved from speedy, could be real, but unable to verify TimPope 10:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless name is misspelt and this is a notable comic. Literally nothing from Google. Marskell 10:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn comic. Ruby 14:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• comment People should only delete nonsense. Deleting non-notable thinks is why I want Jimbo Wales damned.PC Mulap 14:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't make personal attacks, especially since you posted that just because you don't want your article deleted. SYCTHOS^talk 21:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. SYCTHOS^talk 21:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted, yet another North Carolina vandal (aka "Jake Remington", aka "Regara", aka... ) hoax article. -- Curps 23:28, 28 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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ebo

Moved from speedy as potentially could be verified TimPope 10:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, take away the blatant vanity claims and you're left with a person who posted stupid things on a message board ("one of the most disruptive internet pirates of the internet's history" would require something more substantial). Searching the message board at easports.com with "ebo" gives 1 result, and it's about a file format, not a person. - Bobet 10:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ibo as it's a very common spelling for the Ibo tribe and language. Dlyons493 Talk 13:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Dlyons493. Ruby 14:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this isnt a necisarrly (sic) fake article, but not relevant, Ebo was a disruptive internet pirate, but one of the most disruptive ever is an embelishment.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.109.167 (talk • contribs).
• Delete useless nonsense and then create a new redirect per Dlyons. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I dont think it should be redirected, if there is new info on this guy, then the article could be remade with useful info. WalterWalrus3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.109.167 (talk • contribs).

Comment, both unsigneds from the same IP address, who also added a {{Featured}} on the page. - Bobet 16:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ibo. - Randwicked Alex B 03:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ibo. If it hadn't been a redirect I would say a speedy delete was valid, starting a forum drama is not a claim of notability. --Malthusian (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete contents, then redirect. The Ibo or Igbo people are one of Africa's largest ethnic groups, not H4X0rZ.--M@rēino 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep due to evidence presented indicating sufficient notability. Somebody go cleanup the article and add all those sources to it. Johnleemk | Talk 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Java Joel

Moved from speedy; radio personality seems to be beyond speedy criteria. Potentially verifiable TimPope 10:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I'd say he's a notable person, though the article requires a thorough cleanup.SoothingR 11:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only claim to fame is getting Justin Timberlake to insult him. Ruby 14:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Sleepyhead 14:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although he did win the prestigious Jock Conference Slammer Award. Eusebeus 15:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete verifiable but far too few Google hits to indicate genuine notability. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Shock jock that has been on the air in multiple highly populated cities. Was fired for a racial slur and made headlines on several notable radio publications as well as became a topic of discussion on multiple radio shows afterward. Discussion also occured on the unofficial Opie and Anthony wackbag website. He has also been a morning drive personality on more than one radio station.
• Joel's resume
• Radio Ink Magazine article
• Billboard
• RadioNewsWeb
• Google cache Chicago Sun article (includes arbitron ratings)
• Google cache of 106.7 KissFM
• Java Joel airchecks from multiple stations

I think wikipedia needs to rethink how it treats radio personality bios for commercial am/fm/satellite and internet radio. It took me 10 minutes to find this information, which should be included in the article. There is way too much "I haven't heard of it so it must not be notable" garbage associated with these topics. -- Randomgenius 22:41, 30 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 speedily deleted after userfying. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lars Kampe

Vanity page. None of the items here satisfy WP:MUSIC or are otherwise of encyclopedic significance.

• Delete. Gazpacho 10:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity.SoothingR 11:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 14:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 14:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn bio. Ruby 14:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vanity biography. I see no reason why this article (or more accurately, this résumé) should be kept. Tagged. SYCTHOS^talk 21:08, 28 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 redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Card Random

Page describes an individual card in a card game, with no apparent wider notability. (Also includes an attempted disambiguation for a Christian Rock Band with the same name, but no Wikipedia page exists for them.) --McGeddon 08:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. What needs to be known about this card at this time appears to already be contained in the article about the game (Fluxx). The band, from my brief squizz, appears to be WP:MUSIC-failing anyway. If the band becomes notable, they can move in at a later date. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and group info also. feydey 08:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Fluxx --TimPope 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Fluxx. The game is notable, the card isn't. Stifle 14:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn Incognito 02:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Fluxx and then delete this, since it is not a likely search term. Peyna 04:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep because it goes beyond just being a set of rules to play a card game. Ruby 14:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Er, Ruby? I think you got redirected. The original article is here [14]. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete after merging a bit, since as stated above this is an unlikely search term. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• It is currently a redirect to Fluxx - it appears to have been merged a bit so I think we should leave as redirect per the GFDL. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:24, 29 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judgment of Celestial

Appears to be a piece of fiction, no speedy criterion covers it though TimPope 10:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy, unless the user doesn't care about it being deleted...then delete.SoothingR 11:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fantasy story made by the original author. Sorry about my hasty addition of the db tag, but something as blatent as this didn't seem to warrant anything else. I'll use the tag more carefully next time. =) --Indi^talk 12:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete its either original work or an article about other work with no context. Ruby 14:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - makeup. Latinus 19:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete another work of fiction. Has someone got their creative writing class working on WP or something? I hope not, or we're going to have a lot of work to do. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per SoothingR. Stifle 14:04, 30 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; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite it as a reason to support/oppose a merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Nicholas Hervey

Moved from speedy as possibly non-notable member of the aristocracy TimPope 11:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Being rich does not make you instantly notable.SoothingR 11:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the most notable thing he ever did was organize a dinner party. Homey 12:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn bio. Ruby 14:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Question whats the so called "notability" criteria for nobility? I'd have thought being in Burke's Peerage might have swung it personally. Jcuk 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Don't have time to give the citations right now, but this guy was a member of a notably wacky family. For example, his brother, Lord Bristol, was famed for having blown 7 million pounds on heroin. There is a book about the family, The House of Hervey by Michael De-la-Noy Constable. (ISBN 1841193097). Maybe merge into an article about the family? Crypticfirefly 19:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep member of the British aristocracy, all of whom seem to qualify. Was indeed in Burke's, would support a merge to an article on minor Herveys. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as nobody seems to have an answer to my previous post. Jcuk 23:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, certainly verifiable with no reason to remove information. Ardric47 03:05, 29 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 delete. Babajobu 05:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Single Thread Theatre Company

This acting troupe doesn't seem very notable, verifiable, or important (41 - 41 of about 194). Nothing links to this page, and none of the names linked from this page point to actual articles, except for "Aaron Stern" which appears to be a coincidence. Smells of vanity, no place to merge it, so we should delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:11, Jan. 28, 2006

• Delete as non-notable group. Edgar181 14:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Ruby 14:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete keywords "small", "independent", "young [...] actors". It would be a great surprise if this group were notable, and no evidence is presented to suggest that surprise has happened. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:05, 28 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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Covino

Moved from speedy. Radio personality whose importance (or lack of) can be probably be verified TimPope 11:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, "producer of New York's #1 rated saturday night radio show "Solid State". Kappa 12:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa, NYC is a rough market, if he was in Peoria I'd say delete. Ruby 14:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete On air personalities are one thing; producers quite another. If he attains fame in his own right on air, then let someone recreate the article. Until then, it should go. Eusebeus 15:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Eusebeus -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete skirting the fringes of notability, but not quite there, I think. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Has his own show on sirius radio's Maxim channel as well as producing the #1 rated saturday night radio show. New York is market 1 arbitron. You don't get to market one producer/on air right out of broadcasting school. Again I say I think wikipedia needs to rethink how it treats radio personality bios for commercial am/fm/satellite and internet radio. There is way too much "I haven't heard of it so it must not be notable" garbage associated with these topics. -- Randomgenius 22:47, 30 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clint Cranford

Listed as a speedy by an anon, reported on ANI after the tag was repeatedly removed. I can't see that it is a speedy, but given that it has been tagged as a potential hoax, and there is at least some support for deletion, I'm listing it here. No vote. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 11:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax or at least unverifiable. Google isn't coming up with anything for this name, the two aliases, or any of the three supposed albums. No Google hits for the alleged record label either. Almost certainly either a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's a hoax. He was born in India but no mention of his immigration experience and how he subsequently came to acquire the hip hop culture. Ruby 14:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Edgar181 15:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete probable hoax, does not Google, user's sole action on WP is to create & edit this article. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The author admits to writing this article about himself at [15] --Roisterer 13:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable but perhaps BJAODN first. My favorite bit:

  Money C once rapped about apples for twenty-three minutes straight. It was later released on a bootleg mixtape under the title One Rap a Day Keeps Da Docta Away

  Turnstep 18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy of Social Science

Delete or redirect. The real stub for the subject is at Philosophy of social science (uncapitalised title). The two articles were created at about the same time (May 2005), but the one proposed for deletion is irrelevant to the title, in violation of NPOV, "totally disputed" and the subject of various suggestions for radical surgery. Caravaca 13:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete expert on the matter should be asked, but this seems like original research and hardly encyclopedia material. —This user has left wikipedia 13:24 2006-01-28
• Delete its a selective distillation of the much more extensive source material, with at least one disputed section. Keep the other stub and let someone use that at a seed for a better article. Ruby 15:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Makes us look quite silly actually. Marskell 14:00, 31 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 speedy redirect, methinks. Johnleemk | Talk 16:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting around the world

• Delete, this was merged into other articles by the ScoutingWikiProject after consensus. Rlevse 23:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep no it hasn't. large chunks of text in this article does not exist at List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members, which mainly consists of a table. even if it were merged, it should be redirected pursuant to the deletion guidelines rather than deleted--Jiang 23:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It was not all moved to List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members; if you bother to read the merge talk, the consensus was to move the national topics to national Scouting articles. You cannot arbitrarily removed the afd tag and then claim the article wasn't listed on afd when you yourself made a comment on it. Rlevse 12:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • this afd subpage exists, but it is not listed at wikipedia:articles for deletion. Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scouting_around_the_world does not show a link to afd, and hence a lack of responses here. in any event, a redirect and not a delete would be needed after a merge because others may have indexed or bookmarked the page and "Scouting around the world" is a reasonable search term. --Jiang 13:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • okay i'm convinced on the merge; now redirect--Jiang 13:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, why didn't you make the missing link yourself? Just curious.Rlevse 14:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Information is included in the respective association's articles. - In extensive overview over all Scouting association doesn't fit in one article, there are (only in WOSM) 153 and twice more in WAGGGS or independent. --jergen 13:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • was merged into other articles by the ScoutingWikiProject after consensus. jergen 13:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC) (comment moved here by Jiang from beginning of page)
• Redirect to the article it was merged to... WP:Be Bold, do it yourself and retire this afd. —This user has left wikipedia 13:28 2006-01-28
  • This is impossible, article was merged into different articles. --jergen 13:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • as neither is the content at this article unencyclopedic nor is the title "Scouting around the world" inappropriate, deleting is not an option. just choose the article that best represents the title to redirect it to. I suggest List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members. We need to preserve the page history to be GFDL compliant. --Jiang 13:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP I find this oversight valueable and don't see clicking through so many individal country articles as a sensible alternative. LARS 14:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The the info is duped on Wiki, which is generally not a good idea. You could go to the main list and click on whatever country you're interested in. Keeping this article as is would eventually generate an article of tremendous size'--well over 130 countries have Scouting. Rlevse 21:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • struck out as duplicate vote. --Jiang 08:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the only reason someone would look for this page would be if they were looking for the WOSM publication of similar name. Most anyone would type "Scouting" or possibly "World Scouting," so there's no need to leave a redirect -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • deleting the redirect is against Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F. There is nontrivial page history here. --Jiang 08:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying I want to delete a redirect, I'm saying that I don't want to create a redirect in the first place -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I created the redirect. Issue settled... --Jiang 11:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the information exists at national Scouting pages, which are well linked to, elsewise it would have to be comprehensive and we're then talking about 220+ countries and subnational entities that have Scouting; in addition, it has been discussed and agreed upon for weeks as per the Scouting WikiProject. Chris 18:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • standard WP practice is to redirect after a merge or discovery of duplicate/redundant article--Jiang 08:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as merged content. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • merged content should be redirected. see wikipedia:redirect. --Jiang 08:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Deletion is not the last step of an article merger. Either redirect somewhere appropriate or archive in the talk namespace; since this was merged into multiple articles, each of those should get a {{merged}} stuck to their talk pages pointint at wherever this ends up. —Cryptic (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• I went ahead and redirected the article after adding the necessary templates, per Cryptic's suggestion--Jiang 11:16, 30 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licketyship

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Not notable (very few google hits). Advertising. Sleepyhead 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising for a commercial (.com) startup (still in beta - not fully live yet). There are a great many worldwide carriers that use interesting tech on their websites, e.g. for parcel tracking etc, that are far more notable, like Group 4 Securicor, DHL etc. Maybe once they're live and have achieved something commercially...? --Nigelj 13:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • but do the others deliver same day? seems to be notable difference Bigbang21 03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for nn firm. Ruby 15:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It Appears to be a startup but with credentials -- covered by CNN and apparently of notable significance to web 2.0 and yale. —\'\'the preceding unsigned comment is by\'\' 67.188.111.36 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was one of the authors of the article -- heard about the company in blogs, checked it out, apparently going live in a few weeks. They dont advertise (not even sure what that nn firm comment is referring to), and they have reputable ties to the academic community. I think its an interesting new concept and really worth mentioning. Sshoberi 07:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable business. The two comment above are most likely from the same person, as one is an IP and they both use the nonstandard voting term \"Keep It.\" SYCTHOS^talk 21:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily - they could both have no clue how the AfD process works, and one just copied the other. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is a notable business -- format of entry not a typical nn advertisement.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 64.128.190.243 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the wikinazis are on the prowl again... this is just as notable a business as any of the others in its category, and the article isn't even written like an ad.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 70.86.172.178 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep speaking as a programmer, this company is both significant and relevant. found this one on a bay area blog and clicked thru to learn more. there are no other firms that have tackled ecommerce from a web 2.0 perspective, as the article states. this company is perhaps more notable than half the other companies in the website category. Paranom 03:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User's first edit -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep what is wrong with this entry? Its verifiable, factual, and actually relevant to its category, unlike 9 out of 10 in /websites/. No brainer Macknife 03:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User's first edit -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Not convinced its groundbreaking, but I'm no engineer. It is verifiable and reasonably notable Keep Matrices 04:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep appears to be the ultimate web2.0 mashup to me. I'm confused as to why people think this isn't relevant. Perhaps they are just ahead of their time. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 67.119.79.132 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a revolutionary company that is changing the retail landscape by leveraging information. It will define new standards of customer service in this instant gratification world and even the playing field in the battle between brick and click retailers. They are game changers! MJR 15:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User's first edit -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There are an lot of new accounts voicing their opinions here and on the related AfD. Can I please remind you that AfD is not a vote, but rather a method of building consensus. Whilst the opinions of new users are very welcome, the admin who closes this AfD is not obliged to treat them all with the same weight. Personally I think the article Licketyship is more notable than the article on Robert Pazornik, especially as all relevant information from that article can be included in this one. So that'd be a weak keep, but it could still do with being verified/cleaned up. --Petros471 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I should probably first qualify that while my account is new, I am not a new user, I have been contributing religiously by IP only for the past 3 years. I stumbled to the LicketyShip article while reading about other Web 2.0 companies, and I must say I'm mostly (though not entirely) befuddled as to why its up for deletion as NN. I have a feeling that most advocating delete don't really know much about web 2.0 and why it's important. The editor who made the comment about Group 4 Securicor and DHL is a perfect exemplar; those companies are about as similar to what Licketyship is doing as Kodak is to Flickr. There is a substantial public interest in this company not only becuase it is part of a larger, more significant movement, but also becuase its doing something no other company has done (or tried to do) before - and it's entirely verifiable. If you do a bit more than a quick google, this company has been covered by Fortune, CNN, and NYT - and I found those in about 2 minutes worth of research. That said, this is my first AfD vote, and hopefully my last.--Bigbang21 22:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems there are sockpuppets in use here. --Sleepyhead 11:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. Stifle 14:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Not otherwise notable. And I ain't no sock puppet.-Ikkyu2 22:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rory096 00:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm admittedly new to editing. I read wikipedia a lot, but havent edited any pages. I searched for licketyship after reading the techcrunch blog. I guess they're not a huge company, but they're apparently notable enough to be recognized by stanford's tech community. I'm not really sure what the standard is for deleting an entry (lack of notability?), but when I google them, I come up with all sorts of hits and articles. Does that not make them notable? Or is it something about what the company does that would make them notable? If its the former, I guess you could be objective by measuring how many pieces in the popular press mention them (which seems to be quite a few). If its the latter, then I guess its pretty subjective, and if you don't know much about the space the company is in, you might not be qualified to voice an opinion -- that's just my 2 cents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.133.103 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment made several NPOV clean-ups, per Petros471, using media descriptions as guide

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glusontite

Hoax [16], created by a new editor who also vandalized other pages. - Liberatore(T) 13:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. This vandal also created Peawe hoax. Wuzzy 13:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Edgar181 14:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Ruby 15:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax JoJan 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - joke. Latinus 19:22, 28 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 withdrawn by nominator --TimPope 22:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1967 in radio

This is a very short article with only one piece of information. This information is already contained in the Minnesota Public Radio article. James084 13:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC) I am withdrawing my nomination and/or changing my vote based on the work performed by Grutness. This article is much more useful now. James084 16:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; we also have a number of other articles on "year in radio", such as 1950 in radio, and a category: Category:Years in radio. The article should however been much shortened, as it is supposed to be a list of events without detailing them. - Liberatore(T) 13:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Liberatore. Ruby 15:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. And all the other related empty bullet points too. One article covers it already. Metta Bubble 15:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have rechecked the new version and, my apologies to those working on this, I still think a merge and delete is appropriate. The purpose of these Category:Years in radio articles still seems a little obscure and MPR centric. Metta Bubble 09:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Browsing through the years in radio category reveals it to be largely empty and without clear intent. Grutness' work puts this just above threshhold; a comprehensive timeline would be interesting, but a massive amount of work. Eusebeus 15:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Latinus 19:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC) (changed vote)
• Keep. I've expanded it a little, and a trawl through the events, births and deaths of 1967 categories by someone in the know should enable this to be expanded much further. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've now extended it quite a bit further... Grutness...wha? 09:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep One of six articles in category:Years in radio. No doubt the series will develop (I mean over the years, not necessarily before the completion of this discussion). CalJW 03:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's much better now. Latinus 09:49, 31 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peawe and The Peawe

Hoax [17] created by a new user who also vandalized other pages. - Liberatore(T) 13:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. Does not google. Known vandal. Wuzzy 13:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. I laughed, though :) Obli (Talk) 13:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Edgar181 14:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete LOL. Though my gut feeling was strong keep. We do need articles about sweet animals the size of cats that are voted smallest creatures on earth. deeptrivia (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• I added The Peawe to this nomination. Delete them both.
• Delete hoax. Ruby 15:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. We don't need nonsense here. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I do. A little, so I added it to WP:BJAODN Obli (Talk) 15:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. *drew 16:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - joke. Latinus 19:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN both. Cyde Weys 01:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the initial creator is an idiot. --Yamla 13:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• See, this is exactly the sort of situation where I wish we had a Template:Uncyclopedia.--M@rēino 18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24/7 Suppliers

This article looks like an advertisement. No internal links. No claim to notability other than it exists and has customers. James084 13:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as non-notable, SPAM, and no claim of notability! —This user has left wikipedia 13:59 2006-01-28
• Delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 14:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad pure and simple from the Yellow Pages. Ruby 15:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advert. Latinus 19:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Avalon 19:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 05:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — 1 to 10 staff doesn't count as notable. Advertisement/Spam. Kareeser|^Talk! 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Web design firm from Eastern, PA. - Google results show eBay PowerSellers, Large volume cellular importers and web developers. Information available at resellermarketplace.com and clients in portfolio. Not an advertisement.
• Delete. spam. incog 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Spam ComputerJoe 18:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)