< February 19 February 21 >

Purge server cache

February 20[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bozicevic Juraj[edit]

I found this article while cleaning out speedies. There is a substantial assertion of notability, but I cannot verify it as I don't read Croatian. I'm listing as a courtesy for the speedy tagger, so No vote. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special Agent Jon Zinger[edit]

This set of stories exists only on a personal webpage here http://sajonzinger.tripod.com/ --Ruby 00:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Hart[edit]

Minor actress, a bit player at best. Non-notable. Was prod'ed but the tag removed. Calton | Talk 01:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's cool about WP is you can back out anything. --Ruby 02:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stars, yes. This is not a star. IMDB is community-edited, I have an IMDB account too, existence of an IMDB profile is not evidence of notability, anyone can add one, contents of that article naming prominent roles in major features, is, since IMDB is pretty good on accuracy. Guy 22:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Grafton[edit]

This article was created by a GWB vandal. Although it is a televisin show, it has no google hits. It is also POV and all of its links are red (these people all have no Google hits either). There are no references or external links to verify any of this. Little notability is even asserted.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Money. Mailer Diablo 00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concept of money[edit]

Wiktionary has an entry for concept of money. De-prodded with no other edits or cleanup. James084 01:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not an economist, but I thought it was improperly prodded. It seems like a concept that needs a explanation with examples, context in economic theory etc. It doesn't say on the prod page that you have to make an article perfect when you remove the tag and it seems there is something here that needs more than a dictionary definition. As a mere definition it is pretty useless to a layman, but properly expanded it might be a useful part of Wikipedia's coverage of economics. Calsicol 01:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Fox AX[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Fox_AX should be deleted. Star Fox Armada was always going to be a GameCube game. Even the articles at the bottom of the page corroborate this. The article offers no proof that there was ever going to be a star fox AX arcade game. They created the name Star Fox AX by stealing it from F-Zero AX. The poster shown as game art was merely an early version of Star Fox Assault for the GameCube, formerly known as Star Fox Armada. The only warrant that this was a arcade game was that it was worked on by Nintendo and Namco, however, Namco's flight sim development team, famous for their work on the Ace Combat series, were always developing this as a GameCube title. Thus, Star Fox AX never existed except in the mind of the persyn who created this Wikipedia page. Some info may be merged with the Star Fox Assault page but it is likely to be redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowflakePillow (talk • contribs) 20:29, February 19, 2006

    • Because I'm a busy girl and there's only so many hours in a day. --Ruby 16:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is argument by assertion. How can something which does not exist be notable? Guy 22:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirected to Jay and Silent Bob by Adrian~enwiki (talk) Avi 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snootchie bootchies[edit]

possibly the least notable neologism ever savidan(talk) (e@) 01:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Actually, there is already a mention of this in the Etymology of Jay's Vocabulary section of the Jay and Silent Bob article, so I'll change to a full delete. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 02:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So next time someone types in "Snootchie bootchies" we should invite them to create a new article for us? Kappa 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French 75 (cocktail)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a cookbook. On the other hand, I don't know enough about drinks to say that this isn't a particularly noteworthy one, so I abstain. (Maybe move to wikibooks?) Vanigo 00:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The French 75 has a history to it, which I have found and added, so my vote is to keep this article. GeAm9111

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as non-notable club, contact attempt, WP:SNOW and possibly gaming the system. Guy 11:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheggie Party[edit]

Speedy Delete - There is already a similar article up for AFD. Same reasons as per in that AFD listed. -- Arnzy | Talk 02:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raxis[edit]

Non notable. Dragon Valor itself is only a stub. Jtrost (T | C | #) 02:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Shanel 00:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African Caribbean[edit]

Delete. This page is just a dictionary definition, and even at that is disputed. It was created Jan. 28 and has not been edited since that date (the dispute tags were added immediately and the creator of the page has not returned to address them.) Srleffler 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Khalifa[edit]

Prodded without comment. Article makes claim of notability as the Dean of the College of Business Administration at the Abu Dhabi University. Problem is that I was unable to verify this claim. I am remaining neutral for now pending further research. James084 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The request for deletion was retracted by the nominator due to the precedence set in more recent Olympic games whereby every participating country, regardless of the number of participants, receives its own page. joturner 02:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand at the 2002 Winter Olympics[edit]

This article has no potential whatsoever. Thailand only sent one athlete to the 2002 Olympics; this clearly doesn't deserve its own page. joturner 02:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was User withdrew nomination and article will be expanded beyond a dicdef. Avi 01:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting tubule[edit]

Wiktionary already has an entry for connecting tubule. De-prodded without comment or further edits. James084 02:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC) I am willing to withdraw my nomination as David Iberri (talk) has graciously volunteered to adopt this article to love. Thanks David!! James084 00:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Proclamation of Neutrality, or merge Proclamation of Neutrality to Neutrality Proclamation (either way is fine). Both articles have slightly contrasting text, so I'm going to apply the merge tags for someone more knowledgeable in the subject matter to perform the merge. --Deathphoenix 05:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Proclamation[edit]

Delete, and possibly speedy. Page is redundant with Proclamation of Neutrality. Firestorm 02:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H2H Entertainment[edit]

Non-notable, only returns 40 hits on Google. Jtrost (T | C | #) 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion by User:Enochlau Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric wagliardo[edit]

Non-notable. Jtrost (T | C | #) 02:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable bio. —Cleared as filed. 06:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed El Sherif[edit]

Not notable person. The article ia about a media manager in a company and contains only 2 lines.--Wedian 02:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitology, Infinitist and Infinity Valued Logic[edit]

Neologism, 300 google hits, "manifesto" is on someone's ISP homepage. Was sent to PROD originally, but creator kept removing the prod tags. Delete all. enochlau (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community ownership[edit]

Wikitionary already has an entry for community ownership James084 03:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update. When I checked earlier this evening Wiktionary did, in fact, have an entry for community ownership. This entry does appear to have been deleted. Therefore my nomination as stated above is no longer valid. However, I will nominate on the grounds that this is a dictdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. For now I am remaining neutral on the subject. I would like to see if the article can be expanded to something besides the dictdef that it currently is. James084 03:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ruby. I didn't say I didn't think my nomination was inapplicable. I think it is still a dicdef. I said the original reason for nomination was invalid. James084 14:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Code signing[edit]

Wiktionary has an entry for code signing. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. James084 03:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death of the Party[edit]

Delete this article on a webcomic which does not meet WP:WEB guidelines. Article was originally listed as a WP:PROD for lack of reliable sources and failure to meet WP:WEB, but PROD tag was removed by an editor who "think[s] it is notable enough especially since it's recognized by a Wikiproject." However, being tagged by our webcomics wikiproject isn't a notability statement; unless they somehow fall through the cracks, all webcomics-related articles are part of our webcomics wikiproject. And the article still has no reliable sources (I've been unable to find any in google or nexis) and still does not appear to meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 03:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pax Romana (Music)[edit]

Delete — Fails WP:MUSIC, Not notable. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 20, 2006, 03:29 (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 a non-notable organization. --InShaneee 04:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Untouchables (Kingdom of Loathing Clan)[edit]

Non-notable gaming clan. Prod tag was removed User:71.36.120.106 Cnwb 03:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Swingy[edit]

This was originally prodded without comment. It appears to be a neologism and does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. James084 03:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tal' Nerinn[edit]

Probably fan fiction. Google search shows nothing relating to this guy. Delete. BryanG 03:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Poll Land[edit]

Non-notable gaming community. Prod tag was removed by User:71.253.55.228 Cnwb 03:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Girl[edit]

The vast majority of this article is an attack of a San Francisco stereotype, and as such violates WP:NPOV. Verifiability of the content is limited as well, unless a rant posted to Craigslist counts. I'm skeptical that the article could be rewritten in a way that would be encylopedic and NPOV. The essay used to be a part of the Marina District, San Francisco, California; given the number of bloggers that were so enchanted by that content appearing in Wikipedia, I anticipate a strong showing of meatpuppets. OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point. Wigger and Yuppie are good examples of how articles about a stereotype can be reasonably encylopedic and sourced. This is probably too isolated to have any chance of verifiability. A search limited to "sfgate.com" returns two articles; one mentioning the term in passing, the other talking about the description that used to be in the Marina District, San Francisco, California article. I couldn't find anything in the Guardian or Examiner. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References added which discuss Marina stereotypes from SFWeekly and Guardian. Still very local to San Francisco.

SF Weekly [5] San Francisco Magazine [6] and a SF Chronicle article that uses the term [7] Calbearspolo 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Calbearspolo[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.98.50 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-24 11:27:42


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SILVANO TOGNERI[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you think people came to this page because a friend asked them to do so, or because they saw a message on an online forum asking them to do so, please note that this is not the case.

Posting notices about ballot stuffing is presumptuous. If you find credible evidence of ballot stuffing, by all means please share.

Non-notable bio. James084 04:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a fine line between "outsider art" or "art brut" and "exploitation." The exploitation debate surround Wesley Willis as well. However, Willis's verifiable popularity easily satisifies WP:Music, whereas Silvano does not. Furthermore, no one has produced any actual quotes from notable jazz musicians (or anyone else notable) praising Silvano. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is based on established notability, which this subject lacks. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Brooks[edit]

Prodded, removed and replaced with speedy tag, re-prodded in error by me. Not a speedy, although claims to notability are tenous. Link to own site with "can be booked at" smells of advertising. Recomend deltion unless greater claims to notability are shown. brenneman{T}{L} 04:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. Tam sessions[edit]

Duplicates material found in the article for the film Serenity and has little chance of growing further. Delete and redirect. - EurekaLott 04:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun 100[edit]

Delete. Previously speedy-deleted and subsequently recreated. No mention at Allmusic, Amazon, Google. This band has absolutely no claim to notability. -- Krash (Talk) 04:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Robert Moog. Deathphoenix 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moog records[edit]

Delete as nonsense, unverifiable, original research. Neologism. -- Krash (Talk) 04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Moog records. -- Krash (Talk) 14:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved relevant text to Robert Moog and I hope interested editors will have a look. I continue to contend that "Moog records" is a protologism. In an attempt to reach consensus, I suggest and support merge and delete. -- Krash (Talk) 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the whole article needs to be merged into Robert Moog, but it's worthy of mention (a sentence of two) that the Moog inspired these types of albums for a short period of time. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per Krash. Better off as a paragraph in the Moog article than a separate article. Fan1967 14:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I interest you in this slightly used copy of Genetic Engineering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)
Definitely not, but a redirect to Robert Moog seems sensible. — ciphergoth 00:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a redirect to Andy Moog. I'm sure he holds a few records for goaltending...--Isotope23 14:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, worthwhile content has already been merged. Someone can leave a redirect here to Robert Moog if they are so inclined.--Isotope23 14:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Marudubshinki at 06:41, 20 February 2006 Reason: (fanon.) --lightdarkness (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aloy-Wan Kenobi[edit]

This avoids speedy delete only because I don't know enough about Star Wars to be sure there isn't some character with this name. Looks like it's just some kid with a light sabre and severe delusions. DJ Clayworth 04:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The News Line[edit]

Notability debated. Moved to AfD. Jaxal1 04:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deletionificationized. DS 16:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besterest[edit]

Creator seems to have mistaken Wikipedia for Urban Dictionary. Slang dictdef. Grutness...wha? 04:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts on Fire[edit]

Nonnotable church youth group. Also reads like advertising and vanity. Indrian 04:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Chick Bowen 06:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Rutterford[edit]

Tagged as Speedy deletion, but not a speedy candidate, since it contains an assertion of notability (worked on well-known films and videos for well-known bands). Listing here for discussion. Not vote. Chick Bowen 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already an article for him as "Alex Rutterford". sorry about this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logicwax (talk • contribs)

Indeed. Withdrawing nomination, will redirect. Chick Bowen 06:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Quartet[edit]

Completely unverifiable, biased, reads like the creator's entry to a contest, as well as a text dump. Most damning of all, I see no attempt at asserting notability. Delete. Makemi 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films based on books categories[edit]

The article is one big self-reference. - EurekaLott 06:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Mushroom as a recreation of previously deleted content (csd-g4). - Bobet 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universist movement[edit]

Previous votes: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism 2.

(for historical record:) As of today this "world religion" gives 452 unique google hits for "universism" and 345 for "universist". mikka (t) 22:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE FORGOTTEN BIRDS OF Lloyd Lake (San Francisco)[edit]

Article appears to be a duplicate of Lloyd Lake (San Francisco). Author on crusade to raise bird awareness, so article appears rather pov/opinion/original research too. --OscarTheCattalk 06:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Khoo[edit]

An article on a school student who won an award, admittedly an important one, but this is still a non-notable bio which is classified as vanity. The kid hasn't achieved nearly enough notability to warrant an article, and while Hamedog has done a great job with his school's article, writing an entry on a fellow student goes beyond what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Harro5 07:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . This guy was the best student in the whole of WA. He's obviously going to do well . Soak it up Khoo. JB


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Gavin (a/k/a "Bali" James)[edit]

Does not clearly establish notability. There are some notes on the talk page about an alleged connection to Schapelle Corby, but it's not clear that they will be notable and verifiable. –Sommers (Talk) 07:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandaliotis[edit]

De((prod))ed because someone on the talk page seems to be asserting verifiability; I thought I'd let AfD decide. No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 07:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. I will make them redirects though.Shanel 03:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Klug, Kimmi Kappenberg, Hunter Ellis, Sarah Jones (reality tv star), John Carroll (Survivor contestant), Ghandia Johnson, Ryan Aiken[edit]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Babajobu 07:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Shit Music[edit]

De-prod-ed because someone was working on sources. I thought, why not let AfD decide? No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 07:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mullet (jewelry)[edit]

This is an advertisement for a non-notable product/website. Dave 08:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as attack page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe becker[edit]

Speedy Delete - as per ((db-nonsense)). I've put this up for speedy before, but author keeps removing tags -- Arnzy | Talk 08:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 05:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward turtle[edit]

Nonsense or a hoax CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! It's very valid —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.233.19.112 (talk • contribs) .

Hmm, we have four IP addresses voting, none of which have any wikipedia contributions prior, all voting for keep, with their strongest argument being anecdotal. Guys, you may want to read up a bit on what the rules and guidelines are for articles on Wikipedia, and please look over the guidlines for AfDs. Thanks. JoshuaZ 04:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was del WP:CSD A8: copyvio dump from [15]. mikka (t) 09:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clonizer[edit]

nn computer, ad, 300 Google hits, previously proded with: "Spam!" WP 09:16, 20 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 01:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile bhagwat gita[edit]

Thinly veiled advertisement Melander 09:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Article does not really establish any notability to Kühne outside the Hospitality Club he founded and he is already mentioned in that article. JIP | Talk 23:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veit_Kühne[edit]

Delete not notable person after Wikipedia rules. His role as founder of Hospitality Club is already mentioned in the Hospitality Club article and does not justify a separate entry. Splette 09:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:BIO. - FrancisTyers 15:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Liberation in the GDR[edit]

This is an article that should exist and is on an interesting and encyclopedic subject. However, this article as it stands is not it. This article is original research, written in the first person, and contains nothing really useful that is not already covered in Gay rights in Germany so is effectively a duplicate. Reluctantantly, a delete.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 18:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Craig[edit]

Appears to be promotional / vanity page. Subject is author of minor children's novels. Content has elements which sound like marketing blurb. No evidence of significance of works given beyond links to author website and amazon book store listings. Note that if this is deleted, the wikilink also needs to be removed from the Emmanuel College, Cambridge page Bwithh 10:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Multiple (see below). This is a complete mess, but I'll try my best:

--Deathphoenix 15:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation Air Force[edit]

A much smaller article was the original nomination and Salvation Air Force added later, although it is the main article. The original nominator wrote the following paragraph about Let's Boogie For Jesus!. DJ Clayworth 15:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An easter-egg advert for the external link. Google search for "Let's Boogie for Jesus" returns 5 hits of which (worryingly) this is the top one. RobertG ♬ talk 10:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the rest of this walled garden, many of which have been contested nominations at WP:PROP.

--RobertG ♬ talk 11:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree that the articles on then individual albums need to go, but the early albums for this band were on Myrrh Records, a division of Word Records, definitely not a small player, especially in the Christian music business. I'm not sure they've sold 8 million albums but this is definitely not vanity publishing. DJ Clayworth 21:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have less problem with the group than with the albums and band members. It seems we're at least on accord there. But as I understand it Myrrh has gone through some change of control and that it's name was apparently detached from its legacy, but I'm not familiar with when that happened and it's not really worthwhile to figure that out -- others will do so. The named album that was the original title of the AfD is the one that appears to be vanity publishing and nothing you've said contradicts that. However, as the original nomination was for the albums and the band members, my vote on them remains Delete. As for the band itself, I'll take no position and let the consensus consense (nice made up verb?) Carlossuarez46 04:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Krash also left some explanations on my talk page pointing out that the band gets no entry on allmusic or Amazon and only 400 or so Google hits, plus the article was written mostly by one person. Honestly I have to admit that those are very bad signs and I would be skeptical myself. All I could say was that the band was mainly active long before the internet, and (I would have to admit) not big enough that their back-catalogue is still on sale in anything except specialty used outlets. I don't know what happened to Myrhh later, but at the time they were owned by Word, and Word was unquestionably the biggest publisher of modern Christian music, in the days before it was fashionable.
I should also probably say that Let's Boogie For Jesus! does look like vanity publishing. My vote for that is now delete. DJ Clayworth 23:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 deletion by User:Starblind Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulshinder_Paul_Singh_Gaddu[edit]

I don't know where to start. Acha11 12:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. One of the two transwiki comments gives "dictionary definition" as the reason, while the other makes note that this could be a neologism. Deathphoenix 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Munt[edit]

Article fails to give any sources. Google doesn't provide any help after a cursory examination. The verifiability policy says that the burden is on the provider, so delete unless more information provided that this is not only a word in common parlance as deomstrated by reliable sources but also that it can be expanded beyond a simple definition. brenneman{T}{L} 13:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys sure are quick to disrespect some-one/thing you obviously know nothing about. A cursory google.. is that the basis of yr deletion request?
I've only just kicked the article off. There are many websites that refer to raves, electronic music etc... and use the word Munt or Munter like; tribeofmunt.org (a squat rave crew), muntersguide.co.uk (which is a page for ravers, events, etc...)
Nothing to do with me btw.
give articles a chance, bruv.
The word 'munter' is a fairly common word in the rave/electronic music scene - ask a raver!
tactik 13:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for the time being. Unlike obvious hoaxes and vanity pieces, articles with possible value ought to be able to stay up longer than 19 minutes while the author works on it. I'm all for sourcing, but would a week be too long to see if the author continues to work on it? As of this moment it looks like a dicdef, but could be expanded. Thatcher131 13:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't understand the need to throw something on without at least one valid source. Why make it difficult for other editors to examine it? PJM 13:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
umm, not sure on what can constitute a source... there's plenty of info (I didn't realise it was a 'guilty til proven innocent type deal')... after a few seconds on google i found other sites giving definitions of munt/munter -http://website.lineone.net/~whatmakesmetick/c%20munters.html-.. but i am unsure of copyright etc... please help with constructive criticism guys. tactik 14:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also check http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=munter&page=2 for additional info..tactik 14:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urban Dictionary isn't genreally considered a reliable source, for example it doesn't have a peer-review mechanism. Print and large online sources (wired, salon, etc) are pretty solid ground. Oh, and try out the "reliable sources" link in my nomination, it's a better explanation than I can give. You might also try out some known "article savers" like User:Kappa and User:Tony Sidaway, they have a knack for finding sources. - brenneman{T}{L} 14:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Dictionary at least gives you an idea that there are people out there who use the word and know it's meaning... another urban dictionary link reveals more -http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=munted
I should continue searching until I find it used by a president in his inauguration speech, yes? ;P
tactik 14:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some constructive advice: don't resort to sarcasm. It will hurt your case more than help it. Also, please understand that dictionary definitions in general do not warrant articles. PJM 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was, quite obviously, just a joke. I only just found out Wiktionary existed, maybe it does belong there.tactik 13:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You sure about that? I was under the impression that it was a north African term for broken, brought back to Australia and New Zealand by returned servicement after WWII. It's only in recent years that it's been taken over as drug-related slang. It's also a highly derogatory term in South Africa for anyone of non-European descent, BTW. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know the word, but oddly enough in none of the senses listed, and anyway, those senses wouldn't be encyclopedic. One of them is "to stammer", and the other is "to jump on a corpse until fluids come out" (Urban legend territory - is that really a useful term?) --MacRusgail 15:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the word munt means to either be fucked up or to fuck things up... like stammering (fucked up speech) and the Olympic sport of corpse-jumping (AKA fucking up the deceased)... tactik 13:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qwiff[edit]

Originally marked with ((prod)) tag without comment. So I am moving it here. It looks like neologism. James084 13:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Multiple (see below). Egad, another messy "multiple nominations" AfD. Once again, I'll do my best:

--Deathphoenix 16:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Famie, Jeff Varner, Rodger Bingham, Greg Buis, Gervase Peterson, Nick Brown (Survivor), Tammy Leitner[edit]

Delete - nn survivor contestant pages, also possible Copyvio from some contestants' actual pages. -- Arnzy | Talk 13:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADVISE[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam rage[edit]

Delete : I always thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than an extensive database for each and every self-explanatory neologism coined by attention-seeking journalists. Knight of the soundtable 14:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Raptor Marine Question[edit]

Article originally prodded without comment so I am moving to AfD. Looks like nonsense and lack of content. James084 14:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Question from author[edit]

No one is the least bit curious who would win? Alright, you can delete it, but seriously raptors vs. marines? I always say Marines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heytheretaylor (talk • contribs)

nevermind... Speedy Delete as nonsense.--Isotope23 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advanta[edit]

One-line article on very small local bank; no significance asserted or evident, no obvious potential for expansion. Is there a list to which this could be redirected? If not, then delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:12] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Disciples of annihilation[edit]

Fixing incorrectly formatted nomination.--Isotope23 17:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unicommunion[edit]

Delete. Not notable - Google shows only Wikipedia and mirrors. Article was previously tagged as nonsense but the author removed this and added "The addition of intellectual content can not be achieved if a reasonable amount of time is not granted for editing and additional research. Please do not delete this article, it is a serious attempt to explain some of the intricasies of quantum mechanics on a macroscopic scale." My italics. Sorry. Wikipedia is not the place for original research! Taking this through AfD to make the process visible. Cje 14:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Alhutch 17:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Windram[edit]

Probable hoax. A google search turns up nothing matching the description given in the article.[18] Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of this article. --Allen3 talk 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? this is real.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coinman (talk • contribs) 15:44, February 20, 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. It's borderline between a Keep and a Merge. A keep vs. merge discussion is not for AfD, so I'll leave that up the editors to decide. Deathphoenix 16:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oakey Oaks[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kilbirnie Cheesy Eggs[edit]

Non-notable club. Thue | talk 15:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitard (slang)[edit]

A slangdef combined with some unsourced reports about a court case and a table. Not a proper article anyway. --W(t) 15:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Gonzalez (CSC)[edit]

Although this subject appears real and is not likely to be vanity, the article doesn't assert any real notability of the subject. I am inclined to say Delete it, as it is not likely to progress from a stub, ever, unless the subject performs something much more notable than he has to date. Bobby1011 15:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:15] <freakofnurxture|talk>

The Irish in the Western United States[edit]

The text is far too long and written in too poorer style to have any salvagable value. I hate to flush such information, but it's already covered to a large extent under Irish American and this article is simply too indepth. It also covers information completely irrelevant to its subject. Bobby1011 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please people, don't discard even mediocre writing out of hand - writing an encyclopedia is the goal here. These are not rationales for deletion - see Deletion policy at "Problems that don't require deletion".
This is not American Idol where we pithily plonk articles all day just because we don't think they've got what it takes to be a star. The subject matter is notable and deems inclusion, perhaps through merger to other articles. ((sofixit)). KWH 15:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, but without prejudice if someone can write a neutral article about this company. Deathphoenix 16:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointbase[edit]

This article attempts to walk a very fine line between being about a company and endorsing said company. I think this is an advertisment, if for no other reason than that the company is not sufficiently notable. The article also lists the contact information and has a Features and Benefits section. Bobby1011 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was blahlete. Mailer Diablo 01:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Fellowship of Churches and Ministers[edit]

This is a religious tract/spam, but instead of knocking on people's doors they are just posting it on Wikipedia --Her girlfriend 16:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Futurism (Clothes philosophy)[edit]

This seems to be original research, or at least research which has no academic recognision. Futurism "Tom Windram" has no google hits. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Windram. Thue | talk 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Coinman was the creator of this article. Monkeyman 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arms Against War[edit]

No verification that such a group exists. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. Sandstein 16:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please refer to WP:Notability, WP:NOT. In a nutshell, first you get famous, then you get an article, not the other way round. Greetings, Sandstein 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-gummi[edit]

Originally speedy-deleted as a neologism, undeleted at DRV for further scrutiny under the full deletion process. No vote at present. -R. fiend 16:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discipline in Nazi Germany[edit]

Original research / POV essay. Sandstein 16:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the policy to "notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article before nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised" to mean that notification is not necessary when no conceivable edit can address the issue, as in this case: original research remains original research. Sandstein 20:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe it is policy to notify them, as they may be able to address the concernes — even for an unsalavage article, — they might agree with you, and speedy it as creator. Even if it's not strict policy, I believe it would be polite to do so, regardless. MartinRe 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What harm does it do? Johnleemk | Talk 13:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A persuasive argument. Just zis Guy you know? 13:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. What do you consider an appropriate time to wait for the author to address the issues raised? Frankly, I can't imagine some of the editors that create the sort of article that ends up on AfD to be eager to constructively discuss these articles' shortcomings - and wouldn't it save everyone's time to have this discussion directly here on AfD? Sandstein 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no fixed time in my view, depends on many factors, contribution history (recent?/regular?) when article as last edited, has editor edited since message. BTW, assuming an editor won't be eager to discuss their article goes against AGF, in my view. They may be well meaning and simply unaware that it's not approppiate. Put yourself in the shoes of a well intentioned newbie, they create an article, come back a week later, and it's gone. Nothing, no message, nothing to show why their hard work was rejected (unless they figure out how to find the article discussion on afd). That would be harsh, and it should be avoided if possible. MartinRe 14:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AGF, as MartinRe says. If the author doesn't show up by the time the AfD closes, generally it should be ok to forget about it, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be nice if the admin who deleted the page, informed the user with a link to the afd discussion, in case the reason the editor didn't show up was because they hadn't accessed wikipedia at all while the debate was going on. Anyway, as this getting very non-specific to this entry, I'm going to add a comment along the above discussion on the afd talk page for discussion. MartinRe 14:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Move to Travel cost analysis. Deathphoenix 16:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travel cost method of economic valuation[edit]

This article most likely consists of original research posted on the webpage that is used as a reference. Bobby1011 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smuts Hall[edit]

nn residence hall at the University of Cape Town. Universities are notable, student accommodation is not. No assertion as to this building's importance (either in general or to the university specifically) is made in the article. PROD disputed, therefore listing here. Delete Zunaid 09:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC). Additional comment: The level of detail described in this article is more suited to a page on [www.uct.ac.za UCT]'s website. An encyclopedia is meant to give a "arm's length view" on a topic, with extra detail where necessary. IMHO the extra detail is not required in this instance. Zunaid 07:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I apologise, I was not commenting on Field Marshal Smuts. I was attempting a (stupid & schoolboy) pun upon his name in response to the comment immediately above. {My vote remains delete.} Sliggy 15:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Tacoma Narrows Bridge, contents have already been merged. Deathphoenix 16:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tubby (dog)[edit]

Dogcruft. Why are westerners more interested in pets than people anyway? MacRusgail 16:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incindentally, it's already mentioned in Tacoma Narrows Bridge. PJM 19:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I drive over Sturdy Gertie every day, I could reference it, but it's going to be deleted. --Ruby 21:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't understand the objective criterion for notability.. We have articles like Casula railway station, Sydney. Why is that article notable and not this one? --- hike395 08:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not convinced Casula station is that notable, but I suppose it's going to be around for a while. --MacRusgail 15:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about as a compromise, we Redirect to a Tubby section in the Tacoma Narrows Bridge article? -- hike395 15:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the most logical thing to do. --MacRusgail 11:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To everyone who voted "Delete", if you agree with the compromise of redirecting to a Tubby section within the Tacoma Narrows Bridge article, please strikethrough your Delete vote and change to "Redirect". Thanks! -- hike395 18:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming the Archetype[edit]

A new band! With a record! But not much else to say about themselves. Guy 17:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelwood Central High School[edit]

I am a graduate of Hazelwood Central High. I attended the school for the fall of 1995 to the Summer of 1999. I have a lot of fond memories of the school. With that having been said, however, I feel there is no need fot this article. Whomever wrote this article simply copy the section on history from Hazelwood School District. Therefore I move that the article on Hazelwood Central be removed. Christian_Historybuff Steve 17:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. See WP:SCHOOL. Basically, any school article gets automatic immunity the moment it's created. I don't think the policy makes any sense either, but you wait and see; there's no way this article will get deleted. --Aaron 17:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Consensus was never reached (and never will be reached IMO) but one of the things that in the past was generally agreed upon by quite a few people was that High Schools were notable. This was never accepted as a guideline for a variety of reasons and I'm not going to branch off on a rant about that. Suffice to say there is a strong enough school inclusionist movement that this will likely be kept. At least it isn't another Elementary or Middle school.--Isotope23 18:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there is no new information on this page that is not on the Hazelwood School District page. In fact that information and wording is the same. I would not object to a Hazelwood Central High Page that talked about Hazelwood sports, prinicplas and individual school history. However, this page is not any of those. This page could be renamed "The History of Hazelwood School District", but then this article is unnessacary since the district's history is on the District's main page. (Steve 17:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Long and detailed discussions were held to try to agree a protocol for merging minor and unremarkable schools into larger articles for the school district. A small number of people refused on principle to accept anything other than having a separate article for every school and absolutely would not countenance compromise. No article on a verifiable school, however poorly written, however trivial, however small the stub might be, no article on a verifiable middle school or above will ever achieve consensus for delete, because there will always be schools inclusionists who will vote keep. You have, in essence, poked the anthill with a sharp stick. On the plus side, having insisted on saving every single school article, they are also pretty good about cleaning up the abysmal ones and at least leaving only verifiable information, albeit this is often simply a stub.
Just as nominating any Southern Baptist preacher for deletion will have you castigated as an atheist who wants to expunge all Christianity from Wikipedia, nominating a school can attract unwelcome attention from those who assume you know the history and are nominating in contempt of what they see as consensus (actually the consensus was simply to stop arguing about it and get on with writing an encyclopaedia). There really ought to be a section in the guide to deletion warning people never to nominate schools, it only ever generates acrimony. Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Bray[edit]

Very long and elaborate vanity page. Bobby1011 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable corporation. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Kathmandu[edit]

Tonywalton proposed this for deletion but the notice was removed, so I'm taking it here instead. Blatant advert for a non-notable restaurant. --Malthusian (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Lost (TV series), this seems to be a niche term not really appropriate for Internet slang. Deathphoenix 16:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMGWTFPOLARBEAR[edit]

Somewhat notable neologism. I wasn't quite sure whether to speedy it, so I put it here. Bobby1011 17:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But they were there...! I know it!--Echo was a groupie 03:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenWorks Pictures[edit]

I orginally placed a prod tag on it but the creator removed it, so I'm placing it in AFD, non-notable film company Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 18:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James G. Hunt[edit]

This page is vain and the user has been using shamless self-promotion since day one Yanksox 18:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy del WP:CSD A6 (attack page).mikka (t) 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bifidus regularis[edit]

Author repeatedly removed Speedy tag. Attack page. Jaxal1 18:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is probably best know as the name of the active compound of the new Dannon Activia yogurt. The current article's contents are silly. Cdcon 18:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chain Gang of Salem[edit]

Zero evidence of album for sale anywhere. Four iffy Google hits. This is either extremely non-notable or, more likely, a hoax. Uucp 18:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you check "chain gang of salem" (with the quotes) you get 15 hits, as opposed to 300,000+ without. Non-notable, and the article is very poorly written. Cdcon 18:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur lightning[edit]

Despite suggestions to the contrary in the text of this page, I can find no evidence that this group has actually had any commercial releases. Seems like a pure vanity page. Uucp 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonnewaug High School[edit]

Sucks. --Kennyisinvisible 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out (applicability rule #3). PJM 21:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wowk[edit]

Deleted as copyvio, Recreated/rewritten; relisted. mikka (t) 18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just added some more info, and will continue to research and add info. (Cardsplayer4life 03:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I find it very acceptable, since I do not know the man personally, I did not know he was unhappy with the previous versions. I just felt that he deserved a wiki entry, and am happy he is now pleased with the current version. (Cardsplayer4life 20:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Even in the rewritten version there is no evidence of his recognition. His own writings do no count. In what books other reputable people give credits to Wowk? mikka (t) 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is certification of recognition by other scientists. The rewritten version should handle the copyright violation concerns. I am wondering if the former votes for deletion are now valid, or need to be reviewed. Also, I am wondering how many of those voting for deletion are qualified to evaluate the work of a cryobiologist/medical physicist. --Ben Best 15:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to the Talk:Brian Wowk page a number of references made by others to the work of Dr. Wowk. I hope this indicates to you the high regard with which others view his work. And I believe that it should satisfy your requirements. I can add that I know there are hundreds (if not thousands) of people who are not all scientists who nonetheless hold the work of Dr. Wowk in high regard. --Ben Best 00:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:19] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Scott Wells[edit]

Mere candidates for state office are not notable enough for inclusion as anyone with a few hundred dollars may become a candidate. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So only people with more than a few hundred dollars are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? How fascist of you. --Cwithers 19:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify since you are apparently out to vilify me. The only requirements for running as a candidate are residency and some cash. I obviously don't feel that either of those warrant inclusion. Why don't you bother reading what I actually wrote instead of making random accusations. I take your insinuation of fascism as an unwarranted ad hominem attack based on willful ignorance of what I have written. You are getting dangerously close to Godwin's Law for no reason. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 20:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will read what you wrote instead of making random accusations. You said that "mere" candidates for state office are not notable enough for inclusion as "anyone with a few hundred dollars may be become a candidate." How did I misconstrue that? You never once mentioned residency or any other requirement in your first posting. You simply said that anyone with a little bit of cash can run for office. By the way, do you consider yourself so important that I would just be out to vilify you? I have no idea who you are, are have absolutely no desire to find out. But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and tell yourself that I'm trying to stand up to your awesome power, and that I'm failing miserably because you have marked this article for deletion. I'll go along with it.--69.128.234.209 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what makes something worth keeping on a free site that has no real merit to the actual opinion of a person. You may think it does not merit mention but who says I care what you have to say, and why should your pages be here either then we can save some cyberspace and remove wikpedia entirely. Just on your pronciple thought of what has merit and what does not.

I am not out to get you and have no feelings about you positive or negative. Actually, I guess I am slightly leaning towards the dislike side as you called me a fascist. I don't claim to have awesome power. In fact, I have less power than others who have commented on this AFD as I am not a Wikipedia:Administrator. How did you misconstrue what I said? You implied that I had said that moneyed individuals were notable. I had in fact said the opposite. Our inclusion standards for biographies can be found at WP:BIO. If you feel that this article warrants inclusion given those guidelines, please say so. I am sorry that you took my nomination of this article as a personal affront; it was by no means meant to be. I am a new pages patroller and try to adhere to our policies regarding deletion and notability to the best of my ability. There is precedent that running for office is not in and of itself notable enough for inclusion. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 20:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 17:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Holt[edit]

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

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ULAN[edit]

Delete, since it's not needed at all: It's an ultrashort stub about two different topics, with poor writing, title all in caps, partly improper information, AND: there already exists a disambiguation page for this (Ulan) --667NotB 18:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 03:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Ahmad and Dr Sami Salem Ahmad[edit]

"Sami Ahmad" surgeon only turns up 67 hits on Google, this person doesn't seem to be notable. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I checked "Sami Ahmad" Doktor, in case there were German articles about him, and found nothing. --Thunk 19:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per this he's "Leitender Chirurg des Jordan-Zentrums für Adipositas, Amman" (Leading Surgeon at the Jordan Centre for Obesity, Amman); the Jordan Hospital reference may or may not merely be a mistranslation in the article. Delete, by the way (I forgot to say that before). Tonywalton  | Talk 15:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dr Sami Salem introduced the new method of anterior hernia repair for morbid obese patients. (Article in the obesity surgery journal)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wello (talk • contribs) 16:43, February 23, 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't remove the fact that it's an article about a non-notable person (WP:BIO). If the article is about yourself (which I suspect it is), then it's also vanity and an advertisment. --Cymsdale 15:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted-If Colt McCoy can have a page dedicated for himself why not this Muslim guy?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.246.3 (talk • contribs)

The only reason Coly McCoy has a page dedicated to himself is because no one has noticed it... until now. --Cymsdale 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I cannot prove that the page was created by you, I'll have to stick with nn and advert. --Cymsdale 16:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the article Cymsdale, didn't you read above???--Meico 17:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page was made by meico, so you dont have to prove anything Cymsdale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.160.162 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazreth[edit]

fails WP:WEB notability guidelines —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 19:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 17:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperzine[edit]

Pure website advertisement. Notability not established. Hurricane111 19:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as far as that goes. After all, the New York Times is "just distributed as light-absorbent chemicals on paper". "The medium is the message", or something. Hoewver your article appears to fail Wikipedia's criterion of verifiability. I vote delete pending your citing some useful sources and explaining why this is not just a non-notable neologism. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Spirit1948/Smorsepluggy/63.231.134.166, please sign your edits. Jaxal1 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

216.49.220.19 13:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Per nom" is shorthand for "Per what the nominator of this article said", "per" being, basically, "according to". Read it as "I agree with wot 'e said". :-) As for the problem with your entry, see the suggested links such as non-notable neologism and verifiability. To put it another way, if Buckminster Fuller privately used the term "slenge" to describe the runny white of a fried egg this would not be notable, (or, probably, verifiable) purely on the strength of Fuller himself having said it. "Hyperzine" isn't (or appears not to be) in any sort of wide use except by the proponents mentioned in your article. This isn't hard and fast, but the criterion is somewhat like a word getting into the OED; printed sources have to be cited (I'd expect that "printed" doesn't really imply "in ink") and self-referential sources aren't valid. There's nothing wrong with the word "Hyperzine" per se, but the article doesn't begin to explain why this word is of importance outside the community of three or four people who coined it. Tonywalton  | Talk

Thank you for the very complete and understandable explanation of the decision making process for entries such as hyperzine. I confess to being new to this, and I can now understand how the original entry was deficient. I have attempted to restate the explanation in a more acceptable manner. Am I on the right track? 216.49.220.19 17:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit1948 01:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

63.231.134.166 16:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Salvation Army Johnsonville[edit]

Non-notable local club; Wikipedia isn't your club's website host. Sandstein 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was seleted per nom/consesus. --Alf melmac 00:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyFrostzone[edit]

Originally prodded without comment. Moving to AfD instead. Looks like Spam. James084 19:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is simply informationable and the content on it strictkly is relevant to the topic. All logos are relavent to the subject as well as the link. All information is not as much advertisment as it is information on the service. Delection would be a mistake for an organization who is intending to allow information to be read and written by visitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frostzone (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete (aka pwn3d, erase, wipe) as per PJM, on Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. Mailer Diablo 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stapes (aka Scott Messorano, DJ Mod Scott, Scott Stapes) as writer/singer/songwriter/musician/actor from Staten Island, New York.[edit]

Originally prodded without comment. I just don't know what to say about this article. It seems the title says it all. Anyway some notability issues here. James084 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flaphooks[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. And has a Geocities website. Judging by that, it's some teenage nonsense.


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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:21] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Amber Marie[edit]

non-notable, Playboy online model with no significant other credits Monicasdude 20:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: A New Beginning[edit]

Delete Non-notable fan film and vanity listing. Google search still brings up only a handful of hits, nearly all related to the listing on Wikipedia. Filmmakers also hosting film on Wikipedia, in violation of WP:NOT.MikeWazowski 20:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination transcluded debate from first AfD for this article. Moved nom and existing vote to new page.
Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West_Country_Minis[edit]

Non-notable club, was Proposed for Deletion and nominated for speedy deletion, but both tags were removed. No alexa ranking on their website, only 12 google hits on "west country minis". Xyzzyplugh 20:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamstar_Headquarters[edit]

Delete. Non-notable web forum. Xyzzyplugh 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 03:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Deahl[edit]

Vanity, advertisement, nn. Delete --Ardenn 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Shanel 03:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished Monument Press[edit]

Vanity, advertisement, nn. Delete --Ardenn 20:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Shanel 03:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Faiers[edit]

Unverified. Wikipedia isn't origional research. Ardenn 20:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 03:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navtej Bharati[edit]

Unverified, nn. Wikipedia isn't original research. Ardenn 20:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted via WP:PROD by JeremyA. -- JLaTondre 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jole big bike ride[edit]

I prodded this, that was removed and another editor restored it. I'm not sure what the protocol is so bringing it here for clarification and/or deletion. *Delete as per my nom.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-opertition[edit]

This was originally prodded; however, the prod tag was removed without comment and very little was added to the article. This still looks like Neologism. James084 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Glove Entertainment[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action dan[edit]

This "movie" has no hits on google and has every appearance of being a spoof File Éireann 21:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerostaphral[edit]

The was prodded as unverifiable--gets zero google hits. An anonymous contributor added some substance and removed the prod tag. They also added an external link to the corporation, only the link didn't go anywhere. It seems likely that this is a non-existent company, or somebody's pet project that hasn't made it off the ground. Unless this can be verified, I vote delete. NickelShoe 21:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep; nomination withdrawn. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot effect[edit]

Fan created "effect" from Slashdot. I personally don't believe it needs its own article. There is ample information (in a non-slashdottish fasion) in Web_traffic#Traffic_overload. The terminology used in this article is mostly fan-created. Kareeser|Talk! 22:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest nom be withdrawn for speedy keep; WP:SNOW Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No apology needed. You acted in good faith -- thank you for working to keep Wikipedia tidy. Don't let one oversight stop you! :)
Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cuneo[edit]

Non-notable band member Naconkantari e|t||c|m 22:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hygge[edit]

Dicdef, non-notable band/music project, moved to afd after prod tag was removed Obli (Talk) 22:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Are Mammals Too Association[edit]

Notability has yet to be established. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 22:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the talk page before voting or commenting. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 22:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't nonsense. It actually happened. And yes, it was a joke at the time. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 22:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. You put it on AfD and then argue in favor of it? Is this part of the "absurd acts [...] and Performance Art" mentioned in the article?  :/ I maintain my vote as originally submitted. Monkeyman 23:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask you to change your vote, just your reasoning. I'm not arguing in favor of it; don't twist my words. I'm merely saying that it is not nonsense. It actually happened. It is, however, a non-notable stunt. As this isn't a straw poll and Wikipedia:Voting is evil, the reasoning matters more than the bolded summary. Please refer to the talk page for further explanation of its credibility. I think it should be deleted, but care about the reasoning. You might find my changing speedy tags to the appropriate reasoning pointless as well, but it is important that things be done right. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 01:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused about the use of the Google test, especially in cases of a group such as this whose activities slightly predate widespread internet use. Is that a good measure? On the subject of whether SHAMTA is a joke, or prank. Yes, I believe the group was manipulating the local media, but I haven't read anything in print to that effect. What is the Wikipedia policy on that? Can I put a Category Prankster tag without documentation? I certainly think there are commonalities with Rhinoceros Party of Canada, The Yes Men, Joey Skaggs and the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax. I will go to the Library tomorrow. Leviathanbus 05:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encore Cinemas[edit]

Originally prodded for non-notability, tag removed by page author. Ostensibly an article about a non-notable movie theater chain in Canada (2 locations), is actually about how the owner felt movies were too expensive so went on to open his own etc etc MNewnham 22:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fauzan[edit]

Dicdef; I searched google and can't find any more info about the term other than some people use it as a first name. According to Transwiki, these need to be listed on AfD before they can be transferred to Wiktionary. --M@rēino 22:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West nicolson street[edit]

Non notable, point of view, unverified. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Article may perhaps be merged, but I won't do so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Rutilius Lupus[edit]

Non notable, only returns 105 hits on Google. The information is better suited for an Egypt related article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Changing my vote to Merge to here. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Xaosflux per CSD:A7 (article about a band with no notability asserted) Stifle 11:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fireballs[edit]

Delete. Was placed on db, but the page's author removed the db tag w/o improving the article--M@rēino 22:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bev Duario[edit]

Vanity, advertisement, nn. Delete Ardenn 23:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect with Torrie Wilson. Deathphoenix 17:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Wilson[edit]

Dogs do not wrestle. WillC 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French military victories (practical joke)[edit]

Unnotable, intresically boderline to French bashing in the first degree, of very mediocre interest at best, and no concievable expension. Rama 09:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maitreya (Of the Mission of Maitreya)[edit]

Seems to be an advertisement for a non-notable new religious movement. I can't find the book refered to in the article on amazon, suggesting it is self published. There is no evidence that he has notably many followers. Zeimusu | Talk page 08:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been cleared up now to hopefully meet the standards of Wikipedia. It is not to be found on amazon and it is indeed self published. At this time there aren't many followers. However, the Book reveals many new understandings that, in our opinion of course, the world should at least know about. We do wish to make the Mission known to the world but we also want to conform to the acceptable standards and keep the article as neutral as possible. BTW this Maitreya is actually present in the world and gives lectures and speeches in paltalk most Saturdays answering questions and giving views on various topics. People can reach him through email and ask questions. Brahmamurti 00:33 13 February 2006 (GMT+1)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 11:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minto Developments Inc.[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was presumably the same as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richcraft Homes, at which this initially pointed. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a great article, but Minto is one Canada's largest property developers. - SimonP 23:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica François[edit]

I'm fairly confident that this "highly regarded model" does not exist, or is not, in fact, a highly regarded model. Google throws up no trace of her bar this page and one that links to it. This article is several months old, I'm guessing if she is the real deal this she would have got some coverage somewhere by now? TheGrappler 06:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable crap. Batman2005 23:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overwatch Protection Solutions International, LLC[edit]

Spam, website vanity 3H 05:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panuganti[edit]

Non-notable, unencyclopedic, and nothing in Wikipedia links to it. EdGl 06:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Delete as above --SammyTerry 23:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pianist amateurs[edit]

Delete, unencylcopedic. EdGl 01:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priestressmon[edit]

Delete This article should be deleted because it has been proven several times that this digimon doesn't exist. There should not be an article on something non-existent. "Priestressmon" has been proven to be just a Sakuyamon in an alternate costume. Mushrambo 17:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio 1 Conker Championships[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was not provided, though the article's history isn't promising. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ran Andrews[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was based on Wetman's comment on the talk page. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 23:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RoyalFilm Productions[edit]

Non-notable company or demo group. Neither company nor its successful films found on google. Was prod'd, tag removed sans comment. Weregerbil 04:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sachie[edit]

Delete bull#$%^, no need for Wikipedia contain San Saba 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:23] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Sardonicism[edit]

This has been transwikied to Wiktionary and is no longer necessary. Sum0 23:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sextology[edit]

Dictionary definition of neologism; article itself notes that searches do not find subject. Only encyclopedic content is that there are really six books in The Lord of the Rings, which is almost certainly elsewhere.Septentrionalis 05:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statue Records[edit]

Statue Records is basically a scam, a bogus label, and should probably be removed from this encyclopedia. I myself have had a bad expirence with them as have many others:
BBB Company Report
Rip-Off Report
CDBaby.org
Indie-Music.com
Much more information can be found simply by doing a google search. Subjectruin 09:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suckball[edit]

"a million useless opinions on everything" pretty much says it. vanity page, delete. Just plain Bill 16:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody got something to show how these guys and their site are notable or encyclopedic? Somebody? Anything? Just plain Bill 17:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe they've been linked to by CollegeHumor. That's enough for me to give them a keep.--Josh 07:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind the "whatever-centric" argument; please show how the site is notable. Feel free to date and sign your comments with four tildes: (~~~~) Just plain Bill 07:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summerpetz[edit]

I fail to see the relevance of this article. To me, it is unencyclopedic.

However, it may be able to be salvaged. I leave it up to those who know more than I.

Trjumpet 00:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TeleNav[edit]

-remove this is adware Mion 13:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Jitty[edit]

fails WP:WEB notability —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 19:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 01:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thapar Institute of Engineering and Tech[edit]

Found page through "random article", page admits it is a duplicate and possibly should be deleted. Correct page is at Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology. No articles link to this particular article, and no useful information is in this article. Ataricodfish 23:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, you're right, forgot about the redirect function. I went ahead and redirected to the correct page. Thanks for checking this out, withdrawing nomination. --Ataricodfish 23:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Clown Bad Dub 7[edit]

Delete Page hasn't been edited for quite some time, makes no mention of why the album is notable. --Impaciente 23:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as an article about a band with no assertion of notability. —Cleared as filed. 23:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Aaron & The Crew[edit]

Self promo, search engines show no evidence of this band even existing. Deathrocker 23:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A week long day[edit]

non-notable musician, says in the text that first cd is being recorded, wikipedia is not a crystal ball, reads like a poor attempt at vanity. Batman2005 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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