< February 27 | March 1 > |
---|
The result of the debate was KEEP pschemp | talk 19:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Band that has released one EP and has no other claim to fame. Fails WP:MUSIC, AFAICT. Tuf-Kat 00:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del nonnotable. For (quoting) "one of the world's leading providers of business intelligence" only 143 unique google hits. mikka (t) 00:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. The references are a U.S. congressman's campaign website, an article about baseball stadiums, a blog, and a comment on a blog. The articles don't share a common meaning for the term, indicating that it is unstable. No idea who Bob K and D.M. are. Rhobite 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could go on, but I have no more time. In all of these, the usage was consistent. If you want to delete the article (which would be inconsistent with the other two articles, and I'd bet others, the term is common enough to deserve mention in the article with the debate about Wal-Mart at the very least. I find it curious that I'm the first to weigh in as a "keep". Is there a campaign going on?==Beth Wellington 00:39, 1 March 2006 (EST) (Signed manually on 3 March with information from history page. Apologies, Max1, that it being late at night, I forgot to do so at the time.)
For those of you who have voted and are interested in editing the article, especially those who voted to keep, but improve, I've taken a stab at making it more wiki-esque. Comments welcome.-- Beth Wellington 18:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rhobite. Do you and I differ only on whether the term is unstable? As I noted in the external links, there is at least usage going back to 1999. That's seven years. Multiple definitions do not make a word unstable. Look at "Kafkaesque", for example. Interestingly, when I looked up Walmarting for a definition just now, here is the first reference I found "Walmart is not available in the general English dictionary and thesaurus. Try: Wikipedia encyclopedia." Evidently, wikipedia is relied on by those in the online dictionary biz.--Beth Wellington 19:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax, ungooglable touch rugby team in ungoogleable league. Looks like a student joke -- Aim Here 01:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In summation there is a fine line between what teams can be registered on wikipedia . Professional teams and amateur teams that exist are both approapriate for submission in my educated perspective . User:Mogsheen Jadwat
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs) 07:37, February 28, 2006 (UTC).
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs) 07:33, February 28, 2006 (UTC).
Capitalistroadster 01:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a university of Oxford in England however
The result of the debate was Delete. KnowledgeOfSelf 19:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VSCA Non-notable cruft Garglebutt / (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. This is a close case with the straight vote count at two thirds for deletion, but the argument that this webcomic has very little, if any, external reviews has not been adequately answered. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stubble (web comic)- previous afd.
Does not satisfy guidelines for inclusion of websites Google search returns less than one thousand hits, and only 59 unique. None of these are from unbiased sources, just Wikipedia mirrors and livejournal entries. Deleted once already, the new version escapes speedy deletion as a recreation but only just:
Deleted version:
Current version:
I find no evidence that this had been mentioned in print or reputable online media, nor do I find any indication evidence that it has had an impact beyond its narrow circle. Delete as non-notable website.
brenneman{T}{L} 01:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus to either merge or delete, therefore Keep. - Bobet 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This janitorial nomination follows on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrueCombat Elite. Many of the comments so far are that this game mod is not sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article. Therefore, it's only logical that this duplicate article be nominated too, despite it obviously being of way better quality than TrueCombat Elite. Personally, I question the notability and say weak delete. kingboyk 01:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd like to note that as someone who has worked in the electronic entertainment industry for years, I can safely say that TC:E is NOT non-notable. So no, I don't think the article should be deleted on those grounds. HOWEVER: if there are TWO articles on the same topic they need to be merged. -e- (Or the other page deleted as it is horridly written).⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 14:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say this game article should be kept on the grounds that the other, inferior article is deleted. There is sufficient evidence to prove that this mod is notable. Also I think that whenever anyone types in: TrueCombat Elite in the search bar, that they should be redirected to True Combat: Elite. Marthoyink 13:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BIO or assert notablity. Looking at the edits leaves the reader with a strong suspicion the article was created by a family member. Arbusto 01:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity for an unaccredited school president/founder with the edits being made by an anon user and User:PSRuckman. Arbusto 01:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We seem to have some serious sockpuppet problems going on here and on the associated deletion pages. See my comment here [29]. JoshuaZ 19:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was MERGE to Peter Ruckman. Copypaste here we come. -Splashtalk 23:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable word. Created by anon. user and possible vanity. Arbusto 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We seem to have some serious sockpuppet problems going on here and on the associated deletion pages. See my comment here [33]. JoshuaZ 19:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. The redlinked editors' contributions are almost entirely to this AfD, so I'm not going to weight their comments heavily. Spacelord is a major contributor to the article, so he's entitled to be heard. That said, there is a clearly dominant delete contingent with concerns over notability and reasons for creation (which may or may not be well-founded). -Splashtalk 23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Janitorial action. This was a challenged ((prod)) deletion, tagged with the reason "Not of Encyclopedic Value". I've not had a chance to read the article yet so I'm not voting. kingboyk 01:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it was part of a publicity campaign. I honestly do feel that it is a worthwhile entry. I am acquainted with the publisher, but think about it: doesn't anyone who writes on anything have to have some connection to know about it? As far as notable, the vast majority of things on Wikipedia are virtually unknown and obscure. Is this notable: Destroy 2? The reason I have always found Wikipedia to be interesting is that you can find reliable information on a number of things which you can't find in a standard encylopedia. If we are to delete everything that is "un-notable" then I will have a great number of proposals for the deletion pile, including the above referenced page. Spacelord 06:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are only four right now: 2009 in music, 2008 in music, 2010 in music and 2012 in music. At the moment, all these are a list of people who will be eligible for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in that year, so I think they should be deleted because Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball, so stuff that hasn't happened shouldn't be covered except in extremely unusual cases, which certainly doesn't apply here. Hundreds of performers will become eligible in those years, if not thousands or millions (theoretically), so I don't know why these particular performers are being pointed out, and I don't see any point to adding more. Tuf-Kat 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...red link? Royboycrashfan 02:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BIO and written by a interested party. Three unaccredited degrees and two books, possibly self-published. A google search for "Ron Moseley" brings less than 700 hits and not all refer to the same person. Also delete the redirect John Moseley and Image: Yeshua.png Arbusto 02:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Delete Fightindaman 02:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just speedied a text dump copyvio under this title and discovered that there was an earlier version deleted as nonsense that wasn't nonsense, but which may have been vanity. I restored it and I'm posting here for wider consideration. No vote. Postdlf 02:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
n-notbale, original research, WP:NFT Mike (T C) 02:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Vanity. I cannot even find the website Joelito 03:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsensical disambiguation Intangible 03:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. DS 14:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written stub on a non notable person Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 03:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by someone else. --Cyde Weys 04:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another non-notable Gamefaqs spin-off forum. Cyde Weys 03:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A)We're LUE2
B)We're LUE2
Seems pretty notable.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable/hoax/neologism/dictdef? I dont' know. It doesn't belong here. Cyde Weys 03:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ģ
The result of the debate was delete. kingboyk 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable - not known except by mozilla coders. Fails the "google test". In addition, the article heavily cites the unofficial "libpr0n.com" unofficial website, rather than including information from the Mozilla Foundation. While libpr0n is widely used, very few people know they are using it. It is solely (afaik) used in Gecko, and thus is non-notable in the field of programming things other than Mozilla. We don't even have an article on Necko, which is arguably more notable than libimg2. We shouldn't necessarily have an article for every component of every major computer program, unless said component is notable in of itself. Since this is arguably non-notable and since there is little to no useful content, I am nominating this for deletion. Zzxcnet 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as speedy, but article claims some slight notability. Abstain for now. brenneman{T}{L} 03:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page has severely depreciated, and its function can now be better served by a category. Delete. --InShaneee 04:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy. android79 15:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A small organization based around a neighbourhood in Toronto. Is this really notable? Kirjtc2 04:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable site; article author created three articles with identical content (others The dreamsbox Project, Dreamsbox.com) and removed the ((prod)) tag. I agree with the proposed deletion; the project is only a month and a half old and though a high Alexa rank is claimed I don't see any signs of real notability. We're basically being asked to crystal ball the article's claims that "the project will also grow to include informative articles on general dreaming, lucid dreaming techniques, and dream definitions." -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was recently proposed for deletion but another editor removed the notice. So I'm moving it here. I have no real opinion. Though I do note that it provides very few verifiable details. And I haven't checked to see if it meets WP:Music. So if the original author is willing to rewrite to provide sources and verifiable details then I say Keep else Delete as possible hoax, or non notable. TheRingess 04:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was prodded as an unverifiable neologism but deprodded without comment or improvement. I think this is a hoax. The term seems unlikely, the explanation seems silly, and the term gets two Google hits, which are completely unrelated. Delete NickelShoe 04:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. I'll transwiki it, and they can take it from there. -Splashtalk 23:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See lai is not an English word, but only a slang word in Cantonese Chinese. One may argue that it is a loan word in English, but it is very seldom to be used in English texts. However, Wikipedia is not a foreign-language dictionary. Alanmak 04:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 00:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notablility outside his involvement with Business process reengineering, in which case, just add his name into that article. See also Michael Hammer. CrypticBacon 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable technology club at an Indian high school that does not itself have an article. As seems to be the case far too often, the only other editor removed my speedy tag. Maybe I need to crack down on that more... Maxamegalon2000 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be very notable outside his involvment with Business process reengineering, in which case, just add his name to that article. See also James A. Champy. --CrypticBacon 04:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does Wikipedia need an article for every curse word in different languages? This "term" is not even used in English, except by Chinese speakers who think that one can just form a new English phrase by writing a Chinese phrase in Latin alphabets. Anyway, sorry, Wikipedia is not a place for making such kind of jokes. - Alanmak 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is definitly a hoax. If you check the Wookiepeedia they have nothing on this character. Also a Google search ends up no relevant results. If you read the article you will realize that it is completely made up. Jedi6 04:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable institution, possibly advertisement or vanity. Creator has 3 edits to his or her name. --CrypticBacon 04:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This term is almost never used in English contexts. I would suggest either deleting the article or merging it to some related-article. - Alanmak 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First, I doubt if this term is widely accepted as a word in English. Wikipedia is not foreign-language dictionary. Second, this is a racist term. Should it still be kept in Wikipedia? - Alanmak 04:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put it up for prod, tag was removed. nn actor, possible vanity/hoax, no IMDb, 4 unique google hits. Half the external links are jokes/hoax. TheMidnighters 05:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a children's book. I'm sure this information is already available at Water, no need for this page. --CrypticBacon 05:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing new that isn't in Water. WU03 05:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete and redirect. kingboyk 22:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Google yields almost no results for "neotraditionalism" in the article's context Joshuapaquin 05:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as re-created content per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Jones. Just zis Guy you know? 22:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn writer, vanity page, fails WP:BIO. Search on Google nets 649 mentions, most either mirrors of the WP page, PR releases on PRweb, or pages selling his book, European Confession, which is an article also up for AFD. み使い Mitsukai 05:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. With only two choices of article, and one of them a vintage Oscar nominated film, a dab page clearly isn't needed. I will attend to the disambiguation and page naming (since both are now blue) forthwith. kingboyk 22:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as a unnecessary disambig. Debate began on the Talk Page. I figured the best thing to do would be bring it here. Please read the Talk page for debate to date. My vote is, of course, delete. Jaxal1 05:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wikt: and DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No List of words in Lakota language exists, minimal notability, Wikipedia is not an dictionary or an Xlanguage-to-English translator み使い Mitsukai 05:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as speedy "attack" but may have an actual article in it. Abstain. brenneman{T}{L} 05:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To quote CrypticBacon:"Reads like a children's book. I'm sure this information is already available at Water, no need for this page." Similar article Properties of water also up for AFD. み使い Mitsukai 05:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. This 17-year-old claims notability in very improbable ways. The page was de-prodded without a comment and without fixing anything by User:BriandavidII. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete, no redirect. kingboyk 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Author removed ((prod)), so listing on AfD. This wordplay on "anal rapist" appeared in Arrested Development episode "Forget Me Now". Funny, but this subject is not encyclopedic. If anything, this belongs as content in Arrested Development, or at the very most an episode article. Delete. Vslashg (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spamtastic advertisment. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 06:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
A bunch of high school age kids who dance. Lots of words on the page, but that that one sentence sums the whole thing up. WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC are close to being relevant by analogy and this doesn't come even close. SchmuckyTheCat 07:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is a valid article that I have investigated. --Bobjoe107 02:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was deletion of crap. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable blog. I tagged this with ((prod)) initially, but it was removed by the article creator without comment. Site has an Alexa ranking near 4 million. — TKD (Talk) 07:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, dicdef, word made up by some computing students to describe their professor's bad coding practices --Aim Here 08:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable stage name of an actor with only one film credit and one TV credit. And apparantly no one knows anything else about him. Cúchullain t / c 08:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator, CrypticBacon. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD nomination resulted in No Concensus, with 5 deletes and 4 keeps. This article is nothing more than a dicdef. I fail to see any content here. This information belongs in either foreclosure or bankruptcy. CrypticBacon 09:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a purely speculative article about how there may be a Disney theme park in Seoul sometime in the future. And it's not notable speculation: there are just 144 Google hits for "seoul disneyland". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 09:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band that has produced a total of 32 albums (copies not releases). --Martyman-(talk) 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable Impulse Tracker clone. No evidence of innovation, significance, widespread usage, external news coverage in reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 09:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gmakermaniac: Ok, I'm a wiki noob (hence I don't know the official way to reply to this) but I don't see a reason why this article should be deleted. If it exsisted, and it had a user base, it should be kept here. Just because it is unpopular doesn't mean we need to froget it ever existed
This is the only real Impuslse Tracker clone with Windows builds available that I have seen, so that alone makes it notable.
The result of the debate was MERGE to Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. -Splashtalk 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable video game character. Any relevant information about this character can already be said in Command & Conquer: Tiberian series (and is) -- Run! 10:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional galaxy 'based on' (copied) from the galaxy used in the Star Wars fictional universe. Before I continue, this galaxy has absolutely no connection to the Star Wars fictional universe in any way other than being a ripoff. Google has 79 uniques from 171 results, the vast majority of which are [number x 5measurement item for sale]. I can find no evidence of this fictional galaxy being associated with any form of mainstream fictional media (books, movies/television, games, etc) and believe that it is the personal creation of the initial (and primary) contributor, for his/her personal use or for the use of a small group of people directly associated with the initial contributor. I have contacted this user, informing them of the deletion here and asking them to provide sources. -- Saberwyn 10:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was MERGE to the thing they said. -Splashtalk 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft. Nothing needs to be said about this video game unit at all. -- Run! 10:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was COPYVIO, but I'll nuke it early since CP is so overloaded and there's been no response to either the copyvio tag or the afd. -Splashtalk 00:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:CORP — ciphergoth 10:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was MERGE to Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. -Splashtalk 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable video game character. Any relevant information about this character can already be said in Command & Conquer: Tiberian series -- Run! 10:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was MERGE to Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. -Splashtalk 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable video game concept. Any relevant information about this concept can already be said in Command & Conquer: Tiberian series or Command & Conquer: Renegade -- Run! 10:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was MERGE to Command & Conquer: Tiberian series. -Splashtalk 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable video game character. Any relevant information about this character can already be said in the storyline description at Command & Conquer: Tiberian series -- Run! 10:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was MERGE to ...oh this is tedious. Just work it out. -Splashtalk 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable video game character. Any relevant information about this character can already be said in the storyline description at Command & Conquer: Tiberian series -- Run! 10:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity and self-promotion. Only contributors (aside from dead cat removers) are an anon (presumably up until the point he found he couldn't upload pictures) and User:Mgrest, whose sole contributions belong to that page. No links to page. His one assertion of notability is that he did some work for the EuroDisney theme park, which puts him in a class of about a million other non-noteworthy artists. NB: The billions of Google results for "Roger Maris" are for the legendary baseball player of the same name. StarryEyes 10:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. It's target has been deleted, so it's useless anyway. -Splashtalk 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The organisation exists, but mentioning it is not wikipedia worthy Intangible 10:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DOlphin
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an utterly non notable housing estate, probably one of a couple of dozen across the UK called 'Heathcote Mews', with similar characteristics. Also note misspelled article title and orphan/dead end status. ::Supergolden:: 11:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of this debate was Redirect. pschemp | talk 06:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was created by a user unfamiliar with the TLC channel to begin with, and contains programs which do not even air on the network (or don't even exist), incorrect airdates, many mispellings, nonsense and isn't even linked to the main TLC Network page in any way. Since this was created by one AOL IP user three months ago and unedited at all since then, I feel it warrants either a wholescale deletion or a review by someone familiar with TLC and the network's programs and their airdates. Nate 11:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created redirect to TLC (TV channel) - Nate 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 00:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously listed for afd under a hopelessly POV title. The discussion there disintegrated into a fanatical trollfest, so I'm re-listing in the interest of a dignified consensus, no vote. — Feb. 28, '06 [12:03] <freakofnurxture|talk>
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I realise this decision swims against the tide but Firsfron offers a (unsubstantiated) claim that would probably mean this was kept if it had been made about 3 or 4 days earlier, references problems notwithstanding. I fully appreciate the importance of WP:V, but the photos do at least attest that they are not some corner shop somewhere. A new AfD would be needed to cause deletion, I think. -Splashtalk 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable grocery store which clearly fails our guidelines for inclusion of companies. First version was clearly an advert, and attempts to de-POV it were initially met with vandalism (see the AN). Some of the more blatant advertising language has since been taken out, but most of it is still unverifiable (the only source is the company's own website etc), and this is still not a good encyclopaedia article, just a bad advert. Delete. --Malthusian (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable show as per WP:MUSIC. Proposed Deletion tag removed by original writer of article Hynca-Hooley 12:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged as ((prod|listcruft)), but not really a prod candidate. Instead I suggest normal AFD process. And vote keep. - Sikon 12:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was KEEP, but with some other name that is not clear from the debate. -Splashtalk 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough this is being nominated for the same reason that it was de-prodded. Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide. James084 13:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep. I am a writer. This word in this usage probably falls under jargon? Wikipedia is my first source for current (unfamiliar, to me) usages, including this word. The distinctions made on this and other pages between slang, cliché, jargon, and dialect have helped me get my work done. Isn't that a good thing? I know a good climber; will ask him to expand if that helps the issue.
The result of this debate was Keep. pschemp | talk 06:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been transwikid to Wiktionary (Wiktionary:Transwiki:catbird seat) James084 13:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.The topic is inherently POV--people in favor of "legislating morality" would never describe it that way. (For what it's worth, I more agree with the article's POV than not.) Nareek 13:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this seems to be a vanity page. Google hits all seem to be due to bylines of articles created by subject herself. Elf-friend 13:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikipedia
The reason I put this page 'Ashanti Omkar' in was because many people contact the peopel I write for to find out who I am or what I do and this made it easy to tell them, as I may nto be a celebrity but in the community of readers, my name is often queried! hope this makes sense. Please contact me on ygeetha@hotmail.com to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashantiomkar (talk • contribs)
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page in first person, very few of the 600 google hits refer to this group. Looks like economic justice deserves an article though. JPD (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was MERGE to ChaosGallantmon. -Splashtalk 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As stated this is the second nomination for this article. The previous discussion yielded no consensus; however, there was not a lot of discussion. I am hoping that we get a little bit more to determine what to do with this article. The article itself states that this is a toy and is apparently not endorsed as a real Digimon. There is nothing here that makes me believe that this is a "notable" toy. And this stub has remained un-edited for a very long time leading me to believe that there just may not be much more than this to add about this toy. James084 14:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. pschemp | talk 06:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable blog (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Survived AfD vote last time. Capitalistroadster 16:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was USERFY and DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article, created by User:Mikeabundo. Barely asserts notability. Coffee 10:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a vanity page to me. -- Calion | Talk 18:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another none notable E-Wrestler (a fantasy character created for a fantasy wrestling federation) Englishrose 00:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was de-prodded as a device that really exists. Nobody is questioning the existence of this tool, simply if it is notable or not. This article makes absolutely no claims to notability and I am not entirely sure that this tool can make a claim to notability. Furthermore, this article really is little more than a "how to" on the device. James084 14:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable amateur football club in Adelaide. Also see [46]. Cursive 14:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete.
I count:
The 'deletes' have it. kingboyk 22:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to have been created in respnse to AFD discussion on Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation. Topic is already covered in the The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln page. Delete ::Supergolden:: 15:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
C. Assume good faith. -ikkyu2 (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non notable Australian Greek Wedding Band Cursive 15:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because the article is about a member of the wedding band, and he has done nothing notable outside of the band.:
Delete: no tour, no album, probably not even notable in their own town. --djrobgordon 15:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. kingboyk 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's been importance tagged for almost a month and still hasn't been fixed. The discussion page says that the Simon's Rock Anime Club will write something (and, hopefully, explain the importance), however, that would be self-promotion. PaulIsNotDead 15:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotion of the author's business (in Spanish language). Tom Harrison Talk 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is basically two alleged examples of "spiking", one of which is based on a false premise and the other which is really an example of something else. (See talk:Spiking. I would suggest a merge to Self-censorship, which is basically synonymous with "spiking", but there isn't really much here to merge. Nareek 16:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy keep. David | Talk 16:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable; just another baseless litigant in this lawsuit-crazed culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Lee Wallace (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 February 2006
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this 'group' is non-exixtent; certainly it's non-notable. The page is a nasty attack on some religious leader. Tom Harrison Talk 16:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a press release, possibly a copyvio. Anything relevant can, I assume, be merged into Digimon or one of its numerous relatives ::Supergolden:: 16:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was speedy delete — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC) moved to WP:TFD —Cryptic (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it was reformated to fit the Infobox country template that most other pages use MJCdetroit 16:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was The result of this debate was Merge to Tony Blair and Redirect. pschemp | talk 06:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could be considered as an attack and not really notable enough in itself.Philip Stevens 16:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable housing estate. ::Supergolden:: 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Sandstein 19:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC) It is asking to be deleted, and it is a mess. It's just somebody wanting to have fun. But here, is not the place. Yanksox 20:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope Im aloud to enter text here? I apologise if im not. Really Im not trying to be a smarty. I have this time around managed to folow the links for discussion and fully understand where you are coming from re the !humour and the prefered dry aspect of the wikipedia. By all means do what you like with the article I have since copied the page and placed the text on the cited page so the ingredients/method is not lost for those who are interested. Anyone who visits my pages can see that there is a mix of technical, philosophical and humor surrounding a number of aspects of camping etc.I can see now this does not fit the wikipedia format. I was not trying to bring my page more hits. Most of my pages are indeed simply reminders to myself of what transpired. However in the past I have often wished for some of this info to have been found on the web rather than me having to reinvent the wheel so to speak and so have placed it in a public area for others. I use wikipedia alot and again apologise for any upset.mds 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was COPYVIO, so why are we even discussing it? -Splashtalk 01:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to check out the history on this one. Prod tag was added, removed. Original author has now blanked the page. Originally was a biography of a non-notable person, I believe. Xyzzyplugh 20:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, nn. Delete Ardenn 23:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesn't assert importance and notability. (see WP:CORP) --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reprodded in violation of prod guidelines. Moving here. User:Percy Snoodle suggests that this is fanmade. NickelShoe 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant with the list at Management consulting. The high ratio of anonymous edits warrants the suspicion that the page is used to a great extent for advertising purposes; as such, merging it to Management consulting would probably diminish that article's quality. On its own, this article is just an indiscriminate collection of information. Sandstein 18:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to PHP. This is already mentioned there, predictably, and what is not duplicated here is indeed a how-(not)to. -Splashtalk 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A reference page about a programming language function call. DJ Clayworth 18:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Vegaswikian 06:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing there; not even sure what it is. Steve Summit (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. kingboyk 21:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reason why the page should be deleted There has been more than enough time to have the author list sources and verify the info in this article and it has not been done. I have attempted to research and find anything to support the article and have been unable to do so. At this time there is no evidence that this article contains correct information. Nigelthefish 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was userfy. kingboyk 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was orginally tagged with a ((prod)) tag without comment. The article is possible vanity and does not meet WP:BIO. James084 19:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Speedy deletion as non-notable group. enochlau (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN University group (now with chapters at TWO universities, we are informed) to reduce food waste. A noble endeavor, but does not so far as I can see meet notability criteria. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable drinking game Mike (T C) 20:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was userfied. Playstation Network is a red link and page creator added that: "Sorry, previous statement not absolutely correct." To avoid any upset to a new user, I have userfied it and deleted the redirect. If user no longer wants the page he can ask me to speedy delete it. kingboyk 21:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Writer now accepts? page was a mistake. Has created a new page called Playstation Network See Talk:PlayStation 3 sub section ==Playstation world== for detailsHappyVR 20:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
HappyVR 20:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC) ) Sorry, previous statement not absolutely correct.[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be an substub advertisement page for a fairly unimportant author. That is all. --maru (talk) contribs 20:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete and merge. The current page is a fork, and not a likely search term, so it is not appropiate to retain it even as a redirect. The material may have a place in the parent article. To avoid any GFDL issues, this will be moved to a subpage Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary). If and when the editors at Amin al-Husseini decide to incorporate this material, then decisions can be made regarding how to preserve the licence. If the consensus there is not to merge this material, the page can be deleted by leaving a note on my (or probably any other) adminstrator's talk.
brenneman{T}{L} 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is a content fork from Amin al-Husseini. The material (if determined to be NPOV in the ongoing moderation on the source page) belongs on the source page, and not on this fork. cmh 20:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)~[reply]
Hello. {s}Keep{/s}. This article has been introduced less than 2 hours ago (note I never met Cmh before). I tried to discuss with him but he doesn't agree to follow process of discussion and decided to ask for the deletion of this article. Here is why it has been created :
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Earlier edits of the article contained "Our current fund is DRA Growth and Income..." which leads me to believe that it was written by someone attached to the company, and is therefore likely to be written for the purposes of promotion. I can go along with a complete rewrite if the subject has any hope of being encyclopedic. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete: research the information before making a blind assesment.this information is factual. look it up.
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a spam article; much text copied from [54]; creator's page redirects to article. JonHarder 21:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was redirect. Nominator said he would withdraw if Shabash Merops was rewritten; Shabash Merops is actually now a redirect. kingboyk 01:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Author deleted ((prod)) tags with no explanation or further edits Bugwit grunt / scribbles 21:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't know what the ((prod)) tags were, and they appeared while I was editing the page. I will improve the article within the next couple of days. Joey-Cape
The result of the debate was delete. kingboyk 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yorkiepoo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltipoo and, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schnoodle. Just another one of the mixed breed. From the first set of RfD -
There are 500 breeds of dogs. Any of them can be mixed and anyone can name the mixes anything they want. (E.g., see American hybrid "registry" and Poodle hybrid and Dog hybrids and crossbreeds#Casual crossbreeds.) I realize that WP is not paper, but mostly what can be said about mixed-breed dogs is that they might have some characteristics of either parent, or not (if you also look at Maltipoo and Schnoodle you'll see what I mean). We've discussed this within the dog breed project before and feel that all these do is create multiple mixed-breed-dog articles. We're leaving in Cockapoo because it's been around long enough to be the only mixed-breed name to make it into the dictionary, and Labradoodles are so common as to be found in just about every puppies-for-sale list everywhere, with Goldendoodles getting pretty close, but I'm hesitant to open the floodgates for articles about everyone's mixed-breed dog with an invented name
In this case, various google searches involving boggle and various other dog articles show many thousands of hits, but these hits are related to the game or being confused about the dog - not about a dog breed itself. Doing a search on "boggle boston beagle" gives 13k hits, the first page is for sale ads for the dogs - the remaining pages seem to be simply word lists for attracting search engine hits or are otherwise unrelated. There is no registry for these dogs, it's less notable than the yorkipoo which we deleted earler.
Trysha (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to WMBR seeing as it's already mentioned there. -Splashtalk 01:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable radio show. Prod tag was contested by User:BANDANAxTHRASH Cnwb 22:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm inclined to view this as an uncontested deletion in the nature of a PROD. So it can be reversed at DRV (or my talk page) without any fuss. -Splashtalk 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kat Desktop Search Environment gets about 300 Googles. The article has a nice lot of weblinks, plenty of application-specific document icons, but no data on user base, inclusion in mainstream distros, coverage in mainstream media or other factors which might help to establish significance. Kept in June last (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Desktop Search Environment) but it seems to me that beta promise has not turned into genuine notability. Just zis Guy you know? 22:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 21:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As-yet unreleased game mod. This info should be placed on a personal web site rather than in Wikipedia.
None of us at team Quake: Source have a peronal site as of yet. Can't it stay until we have one and then make a proper article when the final game is complete?
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn website. Alexa ranking of 678,824 [55]. Article was originally ((prod))ed, but tag was removed by author. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Website of dubious notability. Article claims its subject to be a neologism from 2003. Hynca-Hooley 23:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A non notable program that's a stub. I don't see how this is important on Wikipedia Bladeswin 23:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Musician; does not pass WP:MUSIC notability test. Hynca-Hooley 23:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]