< July 7 July 9 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD:A6 attack page. 21:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

David John[edit]

probable hoax, mostly vandalism, google searching complicated by common name, prod was contested savidan(talk) (e@) 18:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henk van Houtum[edit]

Not notable, vanity. Sole article linking in should also be nominated? Coil00 18:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. DS 16:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter St. Allerdyce[edit]

See Google results[1]. Nuff said. Mad Jack 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. - Bobet 10:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Right (France)[edit]

Non-noticeable. Dead link. Intangible 15:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC). Nomination withdrawn. Intangible 16:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radius (band)[edit]

User:Lifelike77 added this band to the top of Radius, I merely moved it to Radius (band). Probably could be deleted as not notable under Wikipedia:Notability (music). Evil Monkey - Hello 05:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Guild Wars, as was already done by User:Stormie. - Bobet 10:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GuildWiki[edit]

Contested prod. Article does not assert how this wiki is notable. Fails WP:WEB... Google test ignoring "forum/s and wikipedia" gives 261 hits. [2] --Kunzite 05:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ~Kylu (u|t) 04:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby janner[edit]

This article has no purpose, simply put. It should be deleted. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 05:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAP (disambiguation)[edit]

Finishing this. No own opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article disambiguates only two items

Delete. Only serves to confuse, adds no value. It doesn't look as if there are any more WAPs to come. Perhaps if there was an article Wild Animal Parks but WAP would have to be a common usage for that meaning and it isn't. Ex nihil 01:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gasoline[edit]

It's hard to figure out their their notability with a common word as their name, but it seems like a "well known" band should have gotten a longer article by now --Macarion 00:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Greatest Marvels of All Time[edit]

NN and lists by a single agency are their intellectual property Chris Griswold 00:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in the Sword of Truth series[edit]

This page is unnecessary as the characters in it already each have their own pages (duplicate data - Giller, Panis Rahl). It also messes up the continuity of the categories, Category: Sword of Truth and Category: Sword of Truth characters. Please delete. 63.144.93.66 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Roy A.A. 00:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It Didn't Happen One Night[edit]

What the fuck is this? --Macarion 00:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by acclamation. Just zis Guy you know? 21:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acadame north[edit]

Not notable; listing here mainly to resolve the back and forth that seems to be going on between the article's creator and JChap2007. RidG Talk/Contributions 00:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Danny, I am curious what specific violations of WP:POINT had occurred. The author is quite definitely guilty of vandalism, such as removing AfD tags and removing talk page entries (for which I did leave appropriate warnings), but what point was he/she trying to make? RidG Talk/Contributions 01:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno... Wikipedia is communist? I'm sure he believes he has a point, considering his choice of articles to vandalize. Danny Lilithborne 02:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a point to ones arguments does not violate WP:POINT. Please do not go around slinging off WP policy docs as random buckshot in AfD discussions. If it does not in a definable and arguable sense meet the criterion, please don't list it in the AfD discussion. Georgewilliamherbert 10:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad, I was confusing one vandal for another. It was another user on an unrelated AfD that was doing the POINT vandalism. Sorry. Danny Lilithborne 12:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hickey-Voodoo Glow Skulls[edit]

What --Macarion 00:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quepapas[edit]

If this is a real thing, someone please stab me repeatedly in my brain until I am dead. If it is real though, are we considering minor menu items at Pizza Hut notable now? --Macarion 01:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Please delete; this is not notable. Flayked 01:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Strides Therapeutic Riding, Inc.[edit]

Non-notable company. Naconkantari 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. DS 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summersville Recycles Day[edit]

One-time recycling event in small town in West Virginia; nonnotable NawlinWiki 01:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judy![edit]

WP:NN magazine created by Andrea Lawlor-Mariano who gets 0 ghits DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know the details but it is certainly the same person; I imagine her parents got divorced or something of the sort, or perhaps she just chose to drop the hyphenated name. In 1993 when Lingua Franca wrote about her they used the hyphenated name.--csloat 07:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Butler is a notable academic in the field of gender studies. The fanzine poked fun at her, but the article itself isn't a personal attack. --Grace 00:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, true enough; if your threshold for notability is the big bang or world war II, you're right, Judy! doesn't quite make the cut. Nor does much of what's on wikipedia for that matter.--csloat 03:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I understood your comment, and I'm not going to pursue the case (though I'm still a little disturbed that anyone thinks this is a personal attack). But there is at least one web site that mentions the zine.--csloat 09:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. DS 17:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny disc[edit]

Men in Black minutiae; übercruft. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Saut De L'Ange[edit]

Was nominated for speedy, but if it really reached #3 on the charts in Peru it may be notable. ~~ N (t/c) 01:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

INTP Central[edit]

... it has been around for over a year, but I can't see how it meets WP:WEB and is a bit WP:SPAM aswell DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Financial Professionals[edit]

I can't see how this passes WP:CORP also it is a bit WP:ADS Note the user who created it is User:afponline DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 02:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. DS 17:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Mayth[edit]

Non-notable remixer. Thought about speedying but there is an assertion of notability, although the author offers nothing to prove these assertions. Aplomado talk 02:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Duplicated in error - my apologies. -- Alias Flood 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quizillcotyll[edit]

7 ghits for this ... and they are for a non-existant entry at amazon.de and a number which are directories of words (probably mirrored from Wikipedia WP:NN fictional character DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 03:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gee, you think? Yeah, that pretty well seals it. (Looks like in Japanese it's Son Goku, the same god, frequently used in anime.) Fan-1967 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. DS 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newster[edit]

Non-notable. Cheese Sandwich 03:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inform.com[edit]

Non-notable. Cheese Sandwich 03:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to begin with an NY Times article for something is usually a big deal. I don't have the special access but from I can tell, it seems to be a legit article and source. Yanksox 03:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over that and it isn't a link relevant to the site, so that can be removed, but that isn't reason for complete deletion. Yanksox 03:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link to BusinessWeek that is imbeded in the article just seems to link to a random article about math - no metion of Inform.com. Or am I missing it? Kuru talk 03:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sim Wrestling League[edit]

This article neither asserts its notability, nor comes close to meeting WP:WEB Seidenstud 03:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you shouldn't delete it as it the following days this page it's going to get more and more information.
Tommorow we have a one year anniversary and The Sim Wrestling League it's here to stay so why delete it?
The one who made this page it's Captain Random one of the GMs. And we also gained some new members by this Wikipedia page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.77.133.215 (talk • contribs) .


Does this help to clarify at all? -Seidenstud 12:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Davis[edit]

Non-notable person, doesn't meet WP:BIO Xyzzyplugh 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neighbours and Home and Away actors turned musicians[edit]

Listcruft. Indiscriminate collection of information. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistroadster 04:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE - DEFAULT KEEP. There are a number of keep and a number of merge arguments made, but there is no consensus to delete here. Hiding Talk 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolescence Management[edit]

Stupid --Macarion 04:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination does not list a specific justification under Wikipedia:Deletion policy for deleting the article. Nominator: please specify what specific deletable policy issues you are justifying the nomination with. Georgewilliamherbert 10:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So should there be an article called "Marital Adjustment" where it just says "A marital adjustment is an adjustment for marriage"? that's basically what this is --Macarion 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure some military buffs can flesh it out. There's a whole bunch of articles on it, mostly military equipment related:
PR Newswire US February 14, 2006, "Air Force Awards MTC $7.3 Million Contract for Obsolescence Management" ~ trialsanderrors 04:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you want to hear. You can do a google search and find thousands of articles and books on the exact topic. Any of them could be used to expand the article past its stub state. Are you looking for cites? I'm not sure what your basis is for nominating this - are you saying it's not a notable topic, or that articles should only be in a stub state for a certain period? I'm afraid you have not given me enough to go on here. Kuru talk 05:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two words put together isnt the subject of an article. obsolescence management is the management of obsolescence. of course. i guess i am outnumber on this though --Macarion 06:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE - DEFAULT TO KEEP. Fairly evenly balanced, both sides make equatable arguments, a delete and then redirect might be an idea to entertain but to preserve the history I think a simple merge is just as easy, but there's no consensus here. Hiding Talk 12:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3-Minute Rule[edit]

I can't see how a track off an album that was never released as a single can warrant it's own page ... tell me if I'm wong !! DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. - Bobet 11:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen Thirty-Six[edit]

NN, 528 ghits mostly not them, possibly hoax: "their front man, Justin Hearn, died of a sudden overdose when he inhaled too much airplane model glue." --Macarion 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was MERGE. Whilst a simple head count would give a four merge comments plays two delete and two keep, reading the debate most people accept a merge as an acceptable outcome. Hiding Talk 12:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts From the Past (The Pretender)[edit]

Individual episode of semi-notable TV show. This article is actually the only episode with its own article and the only member of Category:The Pretender episodes, but there's no indication that this episode is notable or unusual in any way. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does this fit into the concensus reached at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes? --Kunzite 18:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icatch media production[edit]

They hope to "soon enter the mainstream market." When they do, maybe they can afford to buy adspace somewhere else. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination does not list a specific reason under Wikipedia:Deletion policy for this nomination. Nominator: please clarify this nomination with specific reasons per DP. Georgewilliamherbert 10:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're serious. WP:SPAM, WP:CORP, WP:WEB, WP:NOT (a crystal ball), and probably WP:VAIN given the creator's lack of other contributions. Opabinia regalis 17:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was spam. DS 18:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InDplay[edit]

More blatant adspam. This page is User:Juliebaumgartner's only contribution, and - shock! - she's their Director of Marketing. Opabinia regalis 05:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was spam - but don't belittle the Hormel corporation. DS 18:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innopharm[edit]

That stuff that Hormel makes. Formerly prodded and "cleaned up" by changing the original "Our company does blah blah..." to "Innopharm does blah blah..." Created by User:Innopharm, who has no other contributions. Please, speedy criterion for blatant advertising? Opabinia regalis 05:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 20:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake County Council[edit]

small municipal counsel, asserts no notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I also recall reading something about non-local being the threshold for politics, with the exception of major cities which this does not appear to be. Crossmr 05:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Gribble[edit]

This article was tagged for speedy deletion as non-notable and vanity, but I am listing it here as I am not sure if it meets this criteria. - Tangotango 05:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Some of them are the triathlete, but there's very little info actually about him, mainly just results from competitions he'd been in. GassyGuy 06:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDILY REDIRECTED. Lesson of the day: a merge ends with a redirect, not a deletion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gift (Sword of Truth)[edit]

This article had been proposed to be merged with the Sword of Truth. I did just that, and all the information from the article is now contained within the Magic header of the Sword of Truth article. I also modified the two pages that had linked to this article to now go to Magic (Sword of Truth). I propose we now delete this stub. Runch 05:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! (2005)[edit]

Marked as CSD, but claims to have reached #5 in the Peru charts. You lot figure it out. --fvw* 05:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X3 Generation[edit]

Vanity. Basically promoting a website. -- VelocityEX 05:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to do with Wikipedia? Aren't pretty much all articles unrelated to Wikipedia?--APLmath 06:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Nevertheless, it's still vanity. You don't see other websites having pages here, do ya? --VelocityEX 06:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above user's only contributions have been to the article in question. HumbleGod 07:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I do. For example: YTMND, Gaia Online.--APLmath 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that X3 Generation has around 10 partner websites. If included in the article, how will this help?--APLmath 17:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If other websites are allowed to have wiki pages, why not this one? Orien

Comment Other websites are allowed, but not every website. What has X3 Generation done to make itself notable? What has it been involved with that would make someone outside of X3 care about it enough to want to look it up in an encyclopedia? Resolute 14:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This wiki page wasn't given enough time to expand. This website has done tons of things for the community. For example, one of the adminstrators created a rather popular theme (SMFGeneration) for Simple Machines Forum. There are tons more that hasn't been added yet. Orien
I'm not sure why anyone outside of X3 and SMF would care, but good for that admin. Also, the page still exists. You can still expand it if you feel you can add anything that will add notability. As is often mentioned, this is not a vote, so all of these delete comments mean nothing if you can turn the article into something worthwhile to the encyclopedia. Resolute 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep. Seems a bit pointless letting this run. I'm closing it. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumber Cartel[edit]

All sources fail WP:V they are all self-published and unverifiable. Artcile is speculative, written vaguely, and conveys no usable encyclopedic information. Complete WP:OR. Might be a nice blog entry, its not an encyclopedia article. References unsourced opinion. Crossmr 05:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was a Usenet phenomenon then Usenet is the primary source for it - the groups have date-stamped postings. [16] has 33,600 hits. It was pretty much a daily thing on news.admin.net-abuse.*. which was a group I used to follow in the early days of spamming. As DarthVad says it's much along the lines of There Is No Cabal Dlyons493 Talk
And usenet isn't an acceptable primary source, regardless of where it happened. WP:V is non-negotiable and you can't verify those postings to usenet. The timestamp does not verify who wrote those messages. The timestamp can also be forged as can the from header. And as I pointed out below regarding TINC its never been put up for deletion and it should. Its a neologism and defining and explaining it is WP:OR. Those jargon files cannot be used as primary sources as a definition.--Crossmr 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'm following all this - are you saying Google Groups timestamps and/or headers are forged? And what is the primary source for Usenet happenings if not Usenet postings? Dlyons493 Talk 15:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never made the leap from using a newsreader to one of the web-based alternatives like google groups, but does it just not show usenet content and allow you post to it through the web? Whether or not the specific google interface allows you to forge time stamps, I have no idea. But that group you're referring to is just a usenet group. Anyone can access that with a newsreader and forge their timestamp. Not-withstanding that, you cannot verify who made any of those individual posts which goes against WP:V this is why forums are also not acceptable as sources. As for the primary source of what happens on usenet, there may not be a primary source. Regardless of how notable a topic this may be within the usenet community, if no one outside it has ever covered it (like say Wired) then you may not have a usable source. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of all information WP:NOT and from WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth" Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. As true as this article may be, if we can't properly verify it, it can't be here.--Crossmr 15:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may vaguely recall something called deja news? Google acquired their database sometime ago. Those archives go back to 11 May '81 [BBC]. The database is certainly more secure than many, many sites that are routinely accepted as reputable sources. Indeed, much of the uproar over Deja was because of the concern that they kept your words set in stone, so you could never take them back. You can forge a datestamp easy enough on your usenet client, but that doesn't keep the server from accurately recording when and from where it received your message. Keep in mind, as Bryan pointed out, this is not a case of using a usenet post as a source for anything other than it's own occurence. In that context, this is about as reliable a source as you're ever likely to see for anything. Arker 00:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Published in The New Hacker's Dictionary, which - as the dead-tree version of The Jargon File - is semi-cited in the article. With regard to verifiability, Usenet postings are obviously primary sources about themselves. In this case the authorship of an individual post is irrelevant, as the article is about the meme, not the spreaders of it. I'm ambivalent on its notability - I think There is no cabal is appreciably more widespread, and would support a merge - but deleting this on verifiability grounds is pretty wikilawyer-y. Opabinia regalis 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this [17] doesn't work as a source for the entire file. While it provides a basis for the name, it doesn't provide a basis for most of the content in the article. For example "Somewhere around late 1997..." that reference in the jargon file doesn't give any verifiability to that statement. As for wikilawyering, please read WP:V the policy is non-negotiable and a cornerstone for content on wikipedia. Thats not wiki-lawyering, its safe-guarding necessary standards to ensure quality. A single source saying "Hey this exists" isn't license to write whatever unsourced information you want on a topic. --Crossmr 23:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original post was in Nov 1997. And is cited in the article. The long rant to which that post was a reaction was written not long before, though it no longer exists. So "Somewhere around late 1997" is about right, if poorly written. Opabinia regalis 23:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the citations are usenet postings, which are not acceptable for citation. The fact is every single claim made by the article outside of it being a mysterious cartel mentioned, which is covered y the jargon file, isn't properly sourced. Putting together theories and claims and drawing conclusions based on usenet postings is the definition of Original research.--Crossmr 02:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to withdraw my vote (Neutral) in consideration of Crossmr's points. Danny Lilithborne 02:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I questioned its notability, but yes the verifibility thing needs to be addressed as well. Recury 00:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, I don't believe it can, and obviously other than claiming it should be kept, no one else is interested enough to either. Which is exactly why this article was put up for AfD. While the Jargon file is a publish source that indicates the Lumber Cartel exists and why(very generally), there is no other credible source for the rest of the information.--Crossmr 00:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A travesty as well as a tragedy?" Those are some pretty strong words to throw around for something like this. "Internet culture and history" is more than well-represented on Wikipedia already. Let's counter this bias by removing or merging borderline articles like this. Recury 22:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what is non-negotiable is the principle expressed on WP:V, the principle of verifiability. It states clearly that it may be edited "to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles." Keeping this would not violate that principle in the least. It would violate a legalistic reading that treats every word on the page as equally important and sacrosant, but I believe a fair reading of WP:V as a whole, particularly the two introductory paragraphs (where the quote above may be found) as well as sections 1 and 2 argue strongly against such a reading, as does WP:SENSE. Arker 00:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 18:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Gross[edit]

Weather forecaster, marked as speedy but claims to be notable. You lot sort it out. --fvw* 06:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jgk computer solutions[edit]

Advertising for a non-notable small business in Australia; just 41 Google hits and an Alexa ranking of more than 5,600,000. Created by Jgk-cs (talk · contribs), who removed a prod notice added by me and seconded by NMChico24 (talk · contribs). szyslak (t, c, e) 06:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Courtney (politician)[edit]

Delete Violates Wikipedia's discussion on political candidates according to Wikipedia:Candidates and elections; non-notable candidate, not noteworthy in own regard if suffers deafeat. Plus no article for this House race. RexRex84 06:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I placed Chris Murphy (politician) and Joe Courtney (politician) pages up for deletion because the Diane Farrell page was delete (which I objected to). All I am saying is that Farrell should not have been deleted and these 2 not. Like Courtney, 2006 is Farell's 2nd time running against Shays in a tight contest. What we need is CONSISTENCY here. Perhaps we should just create another page on Farrell and defend it from AfD again.
Comment I agree completely. Deleting Diane Farrell's profile was ridiculous. While the current political notability policy is misguided, even following the policy, all three candidates (Murphy, Courtney and Farrell) have received more than adequate press coverage per WP:BIO requirements (all three have been profiled on the front page of the NY Times, among others) and should not be deleted. What needs to be done to petition to resurrect Farrel's bio?--Francisx 04:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disagree strongly. Even if Courtney weren't running for Congress in the Second District, he'd deserve a WP:Bio of his own, as he is a prominent Connecticut lawyer, political figure and former state representative who has received considerable personal (as opposed to election-specific) press coverage. Write an article on the race as well, but don't delete this. --Francisx 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.. so the article needs to establish notability. Former state reps are a dime a dozen, and so are lawyers. Has he done anything notable? Authored any notable bills? Lawyered any notable cases? --Aguerriero (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Aguerriero. Francis, if you want Wikipedia to have an article on Joe Courtney, you do the research and write it. What we have now is not a full article but a tiny stub that has no business being an article of its own. The article can be replaced with a redirect to an article on the election in question until there's enough info for a full article on Courtney. -- Mwalcoff 04:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sullivan[edit]

Delete Sullivan was a mere candidate for a House race that did not even have its own page and lost. Nothing notable in own right. See Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. RexRex84 06:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. `'mikka (t) 18:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Murphy (politician)[edit]

Delete Mere candidate for House race that does not have own article. See Wikipedia: Candidates and elections. Non-notable in own right. RexRex84 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, if you think we need an article on the election itself, create one. I think it's more constructive than deleting articles. But people coming to Wikipedia looking for information on the race will likely be searching for candidates' names, rather than the abstract concept of the election. Furthermore, I notice that the policy about candidates and elections is still under debate, and in that debate there is support for articles on candidates for offices such as this. Frankg 16:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a voters guide, and most certainly is not free webspace for candidates. (BTW, the vast majority of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are under debate.) Fan-1967 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia is a place people go when they want to find (hopefully!) unbiased information on a subject all summarized in one place. Either way, I don't see why this article fails the (more established?) notability guidelines. Frankg 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Farrell was never a state legislator, though, at least not to my knowledge. (Man, sure wish I could look this up on Wikipedia. ;) ) I don't really think her article should have been deleted either. Compromise suggestion: We remove this article but create an article for this race, and redirect searches for Chris Murphy to that page. What do you think? Frankg 19:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe deletion of the Diane Farrell article was a travesty -- 'Diane Farrell' gets 4.7 million Google hits, 118 current Google news articles, has raised more money than the vast majority of sitting members of Congress, and is perhaps the most prominent Congressional challenger anywhere in the country. If new or proposed WP standards don't count her -- or Chris Murphy (who dispite what you say is one of the most powerful members of the State Senate) -- as sufficiently prominent people, then it is those standards that are lacking. Excluding biographies of prominent politicians would place a chilling effect on the amount of useful information available on WP. It also has the perhaps-unintended effect of editorializing in favor of incumbent politicians at the expense of their often equally notable challengers. We may not need WP pages on every single person who has ever run for elective office, but Diane Farrell and Chris Murphy are serious, well regarded politicians who have each raised millions of dollars, and who's names are justifiably familiar to the majority of residents of Connecticut. Keep the bios non-partisan, but don't remove someone's bio just because they're a politician.--Francisx 00:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Diane Farrell article was merely 'candidate and member of town council'. If she had raised millions of dollars and had statewide notice, it wasn't in the article. Just being a candidate isn't enough to warrant an article, and Diane's article was just her being a candidate. --DarkAudit 14:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok. Well, if I wrote a bio for Diane Farrell that mentioned more than her just being a candidate, could I post it? I'm hesistant to undelete this, but she is clearly an important and notable person, even if her past WP article was lacking. --Francisx 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is it just my perception, or are almost all of the proposed deletions of articles about Congressional candidates in fact about deleting Democrats?? John Broughton 23:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that is Wikipedia -- at least this week. Previously, it's been the cabal suppressing crank alternative physics, white power, the truth about 9/11, Islamophobia, Islam, Evangelical Christians, Zionism, Biblical truths, and perpetual motion machines; and acting as a mouthpiece for Ayn Rand, Polish nationalists, Romanians, Freemasons, Islamophobics, Islamists, Evangelical Christians, and Zionists. They're still working on the schedule next quarter for the Catholics, Canadians, and Reptilian Baby-Eaters from Outer Space, and when exactly Wikipedia will suppressing them and when they'll be the acting as the propaganda mouthpiece for them. So, any other questions? --Calton | Talk 00:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no other questions, since you didn't answer my original one. All it would take is a couple of specifics - a few Republican nominees that were deleted. Or do you think that sarcasm suffices? John Broughton 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since that went over your head, let's try again: you're being a paranoid axe-grinder -- far from the first and sadly far from the last -- making up evidence-free self-serving nonsense. Was that clear enough for you? If you're going to try to dish out vague smears, try offering up something other than passive-aggressive "prove me wrong" smirking. Your made the charges, so you come up with the evidence. --Calton | Talk 06:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have violated the Wikipedia:Civility policy. John Broughton 13:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was deleted. WP:SNOW. Proto///type 13:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous right-handed people[edit]

As right-handers are the overwhelming majority, this is not nearly as useful as its complement, List of famous left-handed people. The list will also become unwieldy if properly filled, and the title's utility as a redirect has been challenged on its talk page. There is also a related CFD discussion. ×Meegs 07:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was CSD A7 by Kimchi.sg. Tevildo 00:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinerate[edit]

This page appears to be self-promotion Will.Brunner 07:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete per WP:SNOW, and article creator also acknowledges impending deletion. Kimchi.sg 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation desert kill[edit]

Non-notable video made by "a really bored guy on holidays" and hosted on YouTube. It appears to be vanity, and also violates the crystal ball clause of WP:NOT. Originally prodded by me, prod tag removed by only editor. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OPERATION DESERT KILL IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!! Dakoolest 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Dakoolest--Dakoolest 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me what the crystal ball clause is so i can fix it. Also on that note how is it being Vane and in what way? I don't want this page to be deleted because i believe that it isn't really breaking any rules.- The Burnanator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.32.15 (talk • contribs)

I don't understand. What do i have to do to make it notable?- The Burnanator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.32.15 (talk • contribs)


Trust me dude, It's on other websites as well. The only reason that the link is to you tube is because it is the best quality one that will give people the most infomation about it.By saying that it was made in "his spare time" is only there to give people more information on the subject at hand. - The Burnanator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.32.15 (talk • contribs)

Specifically what part of the deletion policy to i not follow. If it's the verifiability part, please specifically tell me what i can do to pass that.The burnanator 09:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there a rule that if the subject of an article doesn't exist on google or Yahoo that it is considered unreliable. Come on, Just if something doesn't happen to come up on a search engine that is always 100% reliable, why should it be deleted. Also it is new on the internet and it will catch on (I think)... The burnanator 09:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You THINK, but you don't know, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article does not prove the subject's notability with cited, verifiable sources; this is independent of Google hits, though those results back up that judgement right now. If it catches on, great, it'll belong on WP, but it's too early to expect that now. HumbleGod 09:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a proposed guideline that if something is allegedly an Internet phenomenon but it doesn't show up on Google, it's non-notable. In this case, the article doesn't even claim that the subject is an Internet phenomenon, just that the creator hopes it will be. --Metropolitan90 15:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 repost. Kimchi.sg 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elliptical ferns[edit]

Violates WP:SPAM ; this is a band advert, makes no assertion of notability, and nonsensical to boot Graham 08:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 05:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Raygun[edit]

This article is about a non-notable company. Its only links are to a disambiguation page and a commercial website. --Sbluen 08:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Plastic Raygun were also the recipient of a number of Welsh Music Academy awards.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 attack page. -- Kjkolb 08:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afrobean[edit]

Vandalism. Graham 08:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (although tiny 2:1 participation does not preclude relisting). `'mikka (t) 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Jam and Friends: The Radio Show![edit]

I'm not quite sure how this one isn't vanity for a non-notable radio show. There's no evidence that this has been syndicated or widely broadcast (the article doesn't assert this), and while the article does assert that the show is "award-winning," there no source to back this up or even any information on what awards this show has won and when. Additionally, there seems to be a walled garden of JJaF pages; I'm not sure if this is merely evidence of an enthusiastic fan or group of fans focusing on this subject, or if it's just a case of low-key vanispamcrufizement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like WP:SPAM at the moment, but clicking the external link you can find a list of about 50 stations that syndicate it. I'm going to suggest to the author that it be rewritten to conform to WP:NPOV. Graham 09:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I didn't get much out of the external link; it steadfastly refused to do anything but crash my browser. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : Alexa rank is unlikely to mean anything much to our readers (yes, not everyone here edits) and the claim made is very shaky grounds for notability. The second-highest? Really? Because it's "316,670"? What, only one of the 316,669 sites above it are related to Tango? If you actually checked that, that's original research. Notability rests on non-trivial, independent, reliable external coverage, none of which have been demonstrated here. Both weight of opinion and weight of argument result in delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tango.info[edit]

Hmm, this article survived VfD last year, but I think this article should be wiped per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM, and for reminding me of that big fat bald orange bloke. die Baumfabrik 09:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly confused here, Tobias; are you voting for the deletion of the article that you created which refers to your own website? --die Baumfabrik 05:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. No I am not voting for the deletion. The website is the second most used among tango dancers, so I don't really understand why you vote for deletion. It also has some unique feature which make it valuable for tango music collectors. I very often tried to bring tango people to edit in wikipedia, but most of them simply don't do it, sometimes because they don't like WP very much. I wrote the article myself, since I know the website quite good. I also started an article on todotango.com - nobody accuses me of vanity there. I also started List of tango music labels, List of tango singers, List of public domain tangos, Sociedad Argentina de Autores y Compositores de Música, I edited other tango related articles. I created lots of stubs for locations where tango people where born. I asked lot of people to create basic tango articles in other language wikipedias, since I don't speak romanian etc. I love tango. And if I am not sleeping I either dance it or develop tango.info or edit in wikipedia. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

*Delete This article needs to be deleted for being absolutely incorrect. Argentina & Africa have nothing in common, Neither culturally nor historically. Please delete this erroneous article. Thank you. Magiko.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claremore Adventist Elementary[edit]

non-notable, very small denominational school Travelbird 09:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 close CFD is thataway. Kimchi.sg 16:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Roman Catholics[edit]

This category must be eliminated. There are simply too many American Catholics, as opposed to other countries. What is more it is completely unnecessary. There are so many sub and sub-sub categories that this broad a category is unneeded, and if everyone who belongs is added it will be unmanageable. karas 09:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CD VINYL COLLECTIBLES[edit]

deprodded. This is an advertisement for a company with no assertions to notability that would fulfill WP:CORP or WP:WEB. In the unlikely event it is kept, it needs to be retitled to something that is not all-caps. Chaser T 09:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 18:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario's Short Films[edit]

Vanity spam article that fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri @ 09:58, July 8, 2006

I am also nominating the following with the same deletion rationale:

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 05:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Cahill[edit]

Violates WP:SPAM. Graham 09:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Graham 10:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ===The Flood in ancient Chinese writing===hi this is fake by Andrew Kraley This page violates WP:NOT and WP:NOR. The article also basically only talks about one Chinese character for "boat" and expand on this one single issue. I do not think that that ONE argument (based only on one character) is enough to be a proof for "The Flood in ancient Chinese writing"; or that it's important enough to have its own Wikipedia article. To assume such conclusion based on just one single Chinese character is simply POV and non-encyclopedic. Furthermore, no important references are in place.[reply]

Heilme 10:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nick Summer Pack[edit]

A meaningless piece of listcruft WP:LC including "various Nicktoons" as well. --Richhoncho 10:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Bo's Chicken[edit]

Article is of a non-notable fast food outlet (and may well have been created as a joke). NB: possibly the establishment's name is "BoBo's Chicken" according to the one Google reference I could find (a blog entry). Also: I originally "prodded" this, but then an anon. removed the prod notice 4 days later for what I suspect was a spurious reason. What a drag. A bit iffy 10:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Stringer[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable biography. In addition, the article's author appears to be a brother or other relative of the subject. And the text is a direct copy and paste of here. Metros232 12:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Veterans of other conflicts[edit]

The last time we looked at this, it was decided to split. That was 5 months ago. Since that time, nobody has done any maintenance on the article, and it's just as pointless as it was before. As my mother used to say, shit, or get off the pot -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was : no consensus between deletion and merging. As the parent article Hwa Chong Institution currently contains nothing about the club but its name, in a long list of about 50-60 other societies, I have redirected the article there, and anyone who wants to do a merge if it becomes viable can go into the redirect's history. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tahan Mountain Trekking Team[edit]

Insignificant. A high school's recreational club of some school. Either delete of merge to the school's page. __earth (Talk) 12:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. __earth (Talk) 15:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete SKINT - no consensus on whether Skint should be a redirect or not so I've played safe and redirected. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skint[edit]

Slang dicdef; Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide. Deprodded with message on the talk page. Weregerbil 12:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just realised SKINT will get you to Skint once deleted. Er, I think. --DaveG12345 03:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (Pages which start "Danijel Turina is a Croatian writer [and] a lunatic" don't merit relisting so they can remain so for another 5 days.) --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danijel Turina[edit]

This semi-random eccentric's article does not meet the notability criteria for biographies. The talk page already has one complaint about the existence of the article. I have personally heard about this person on the Croatian newsgroups, but that's about it, and it doesn't make him suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Joy [shallot] 13:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASOG (Arab Special Operations Group)[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion among Wikipedia's editors. The aim is to reach a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia, using Wikipedia's policies as the benchmark. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

"ASOG is a fictional Group in the Project Reality Tournament". Ghits for project reality tournament seem to point to it being a fictional campaign within Battlefield 2. Article is WP:NN as gamecruft that does not meet WP:WEB. Alphachimp talk 13:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://tournament.realitymod.com/index.php shows >600 members http://realitymod.com/forum/index.php shows over 35000 hits to the tournament website from that link alone Also that site has over 7000 members — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASOGMaverick (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 nomination was Speedy keep "unsourced tripe" is not a valid reason to delete. - FrancisTyers · 08:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zamanfou[edit]

AfD submitted by anon user 212.251.125.15, with comment - "deleted unsourced tripe (probably some editor's personal musings) on the background behind the so-called phenomenon, per WP: no original research". This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 13:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The so called "phenomenon" returns only 25 results in Google Groups, of which most consist of a single usenet user's signature. On the world wide web, almost all returns are reproductions of the wikipedia entry, or unrelated websites such as "zamanfou casino" and forum usernames. In fact describing "zamanfou" as some complex Greek social phenomenon, when in fact it is nothing more than a slang expression, similar to "devil may care", while amusing, is completely incorrect. Last time I checked what Wikipedia was not, I read that Wikipedia is not a Dictionary or jargon guide [24]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpapatelios (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 was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floating Solar Chimney Technology[edit]

This is typically a vanity article; the only person interested in it is its author. The issue has been covered in a single sentence in Solar updraft tower, and that is probably more attention than it deserves anyway. We have seen a proliferation of "Solar Tower" type articles in the past. Just a few months ago we had 3 almost identical articles Solar Tower, Solar chimney, and Solar Tower Buronga, all of which were riddled with commercialism. Those 3 articles have now been merged into one single article, i.e. Solar updraft tower, which btw still needs a lot of cleaning up as it bears the traces of its torturous past. But these kind of articles keep popping up; another example of that is Vortex engine. I think it is about time to put a stop to it. JdH 13:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • All there is is one single article, nothing else. There are no independent confirmations from other investigators. JdH 08:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments about weight and strength could be used to prove that neither a Zeppelin nore a Boeing 747 can fly, too. Those floppy "men" at used car yards are a lightweight tube with air flowing through them. In that case, they are powered by a fan or air compressor, not a solar collector and chimney effect, but they do stay up because of the pressure difference—stability is the issue. --Scott Davis Talk 05:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In that case there is a positive pressure difference; in the case of the solar chimney there is a negative pressure difference. Therefore, an unsupported floppy solar chimney would deflate rather than inflate. JdH 08:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Steele[edit]

None of the books written by this Tim Steele appear to be notable. "Tim Steele" plus the titles of each of his three books gets 17, 104, and 1 Google results. There appears to be other Tim Steeles, but this one's not notable. Metros232 13:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of final boss monsters in the Sonic series[edit]

Complete fancruft. Has no place in an encyclopedia. Randall Brackett 13:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Punchline[edit]

Delete as it is nothing more then an advertisement - the notability of the performers does not convey notability to the club. Gay Cdn 13:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rock (University of Michigan)[edit]

Merge content into the UofM page and delete this article as the rock is not notable in of itself. Gay Cdn 13:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, no assertion of notability Just zis Guy you know? 21:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stapleguns[edit]

Delete as the band fails WP:MUSIC. Gay Cdn 13:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was send to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Altieri[edit]

Delete as this page is an advertisement and based on the choices of language, may be a vanity page. Gay Cdn 14:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 the article cried out for it. Just zis Guy you know? 21:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium (band)[edit]

Delete as it fails WP:MUSIC. Gay Cdn 14:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Town topics[edit]

Delete as a non-notable publication; it may also be seen as an ad. Gay Cdn 14:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TradePoint Systems[edit]

Delete as advertising. Gay Cdn 14:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trek Travel International[edit]

Delete as a non-notable corporation. Its news coverage is the result of hack attack not the company. Gay Cdn 14:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami in Sangam[edit]

Delete as this seems to be original research. Gay Cdn 14:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, unfortunately - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Whelan[edit]

Non-notable bio whos speedy deletion has been contested by a new user.[27] Delete as per Wikipedia is not a memorial and WP:BIO. Jester 14:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infonation[edit]

Looks like spam for a nn tech company, though the company no longer exists Artw 14:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CARNIVAL of the DAMNED[edit]

Non-notable, non-released (except through Google), with minimal Google hits Rklawton 14:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Overwhelming consensus to keep. --Tony Sidaway 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There Is No Cabal[edit]

Neologism, the jargon file website while it defines that the term is used on usenet, the rest of the article is complete WP:OR. There is no basis given in that source for how the term is used, what is meant by its use, or why it is used. The article puts forth unsourced theories and draws unsourced conclusions, all of which is original research. I'm not arguing the notability of the statement. If you want to argue for keep, please address the points raised, this is a debate for concensus, not a vote. Crossmr 14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's under "backbone cabal." Tom Harrison Talk 15:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And is that also in a published source? This jargon file is just hosted on Eric S Raymond's personal site.--Crossmr 15:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The jargon file is also ISBN 0262680920. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could use interlibrary loan and check, but I think Eric Raymond is a reliable source for "backbone cabal." It's available at McGill as well, if you prefer. Worst case, we could say, "According to Eric Raymond, the term came into use..." Tom Harrison Talk 16:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True or not, your guessing that you think he's a reliable source doesn't exactly meet WP:V, is there some evidence that he is indeed a subject matter expert?--Crossmr 16:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... Tom Harrison gave you the link to his Wikipedia page. Did you read through it? It establishes him fairly well as a subject matter expert. Captainktainer * Talk 00:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, forget the merger part. Hereafter I preview. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is a total lack of credible citation. Rewriting doesn't solve that.--Crossmr 17:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I explain them by pointing out that Wikipedia is filled with giant nerds, like yourself, just like usenet was filled with them. Shouldn't you be working on Pokemon articles or something? Recury 16:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Usenet was full of nerds, and the nerds propagated the TINC meme. And the mem crossed from Usenet to Wikipedia, and has been around for over twenty years. I'd say that was pretty good grounds for assuming it has legs... Just zis Guy you know? 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HVATOS[edit]

A drag car whose claim to fame is that it "holds the record for quickest 13B Turbocharged, tubbed drag car in New Zealand." Recury 14:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very well known car in New Zealand and is a New Zealand record holder.Stevee2 22:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has local relevance and fame in New Zealand among car enthusiasists, and Wikipedia is not paper. Hauser 22:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is this article up for deletion? People proposing deletions need to state reasons, rather than expecting authors probably not familar with Wikipedia bureacracy to second guess them or wade through reems of policy waffle. My best guess is non-notability - though the car, (and its silly number plate)seem to pass the google test. Presumably the assumption is New Zealand racing is unimportant. Tell Chris Amon, Craig Baird, Andrew Bagnall, Denny Hulme, Robbie Francevic, Bruce McLaren, Possum Bourne, Scott Dixon, Paul Radisich, Jason Richards, Jim Richards, Greg Murphy, Burt Munro, John Britten... Winstonwolfe 02:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good guess! Not-notability it is. For the record, if this car's claim to fame was that it holds the record for the quickest 13B turbocharged, tubbed drag car in the United States, then I would feel just as strongly that it should be deleted. Even if it were the quickest 13B turbocharged, tubbed drag car in the entire world, I would still be nominating it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, like which car held the record for the quickest 13B turbocharged, tubbed drag car in New Zealand in 2006. Recury 01:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Subramanian[edit]

Delete as is a vanity page based on the author being the name of his publication and the only edit. Gay Cdn 14:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sample Master[edit]

Delete as an advertisement for ATL. Gay Cdn 14:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep stub, no relist necessary - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Games Corporation[edit]

Delete as this is basically an advertisement. Gay Cdn 14:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought about that at the time of nomination, but if the advertising portion was deleted, all that would exist in the article is the fact it is a NY company, listed on Nasdaq, and its ticker.--Gay Cdn 19:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus though a merge is strongly suggested - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Develop don't destroy brooklyn[edit]

Spam, loaded with POV, probably cut and pasted from a press release or website. Artw 15:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Bwith's logic. JoshuaZ 20:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Changing my opinion to keep and rename following Kmf164's logic below. JoshuaZ 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am actually not opposed to this becoming a Redirect to one or other of the foregoing articles. When the article was AfD'ed it was pure spam. It's now a stub that, alone, isn't ever going to say anything that can't be said in those other articles IMO. As a standalone article it doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG (activities are local in scope, and see the example case cited on that proposed policy page), so I cannot go with Keep. --DaveG12345 14:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny guide[edit]

Delete as advertising. Gay Cdn 15:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who 2007 Series: Episode One[edit]

This seems to be a place holder for an epidose of Doctor Who which will eventually have an article under the episode name anyway. We're still about nine months away from the start of the next series of Doctor Who. See also the AfD for the series itself. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. — FireFox 15:19, 08 July '06

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sicherglobal[edit]

With lots of "we" and "very reasonable prices" fails WP:SPAM. Besides official site and posts to forums couldn't find much else on Google. --Richhoncho 15:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per CSD:A3. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish gay websites[edit]

Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links. Wikipedia is not a Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. May meet criteria for speedy deletion under ((db-empty)).Andeh 15:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venture the Void[edit]

MMORPG that's still in beta testing and not officially released per article; nonnotable yet and WP:NOT a crystal ball. NawlinWiki 15:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, article makes no assertion of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 21:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirthless[edit]

I have read their webpage, with a reference to "their latest demo" and 2 members leaving the band in June 2006 it might not be a laughing matter, but it still fails WP:BAND --Richhoncho 15:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Admirable work Andeh, I fully endorse this course of action. --Richhoncho 16:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute gurlzz[edit]

WP:WEB - no Alexa data, advert, SPAM, shameless promotion Rklawton 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Cute Gurlzz is a free resource that makes no money and promotes no business. Its not spam, its not shameless promotion and its a fair reference to the term Cute Gurlzz which is unique. The site makes available free images for people to use as avatars and icons or in anyway they wish. The use of the word Funner is a fun derivation of the word fun, to have fun, having fun.

But hey, delete it if you want. I guess maybe your like that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.206.145 (talk • contribs)

Its not my only contribution i'm mentioned elsewhere but you also seem to have deleted my other stuff as well even though people in exact same position are alloed to keep their stuff on Wikipedia.

All I can say is that maybe I could rewrite the entry more in the third party. Geez, you people are so low. Its a unique web site that has been running for over two years, Cute Gurlzz are unique, they are like Play Boy Bunnys, its like having a reference for My Space. My Space is a networking site etc. Cute Gurlzz is an established site for girls to get a free drawing. There are no Google Ads, no Adverts, no links, no requests for money, and moreover, Wikipedia is not going to generate any traffic for the site. I just thought as I had a bit of time i'd do a Wikepedia. All I can say is that maybe I could do with making the listing more objective.

I run a web directory myself thats free and I never behave like this with people, you know, if theres something lacking you should correct it, not judge, especially when you havn't looked at the site, I can see that only one of the top four 'judgees' actually looked at the site. And since then 1-2 more people have had a quick glance. Its only 1 page with a database of images.

What do you do with folks who use your sites and who refuse to follow the rules? At Wikipedia, we discuss the matter and (sometimes) delete their articles. If you've got a better way, don't hesitate to let us know. Rklawton 16:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) (by User:Rawktonspal)

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shab-sheep[edit]

Only entries for this word precisely is WP & mirrors, a search of the 2 words separately comes up with "Shab" which appears to be a sheep disease. I have never seen flocks of marauding sheep, but that doesn't mean there aren't such a thing! --Richhoncho 16:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Snittker[edit]

Her name is actually "Lori Schnittker" per article and source. Member of Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but her importance not demonstrated by the article or the link to a PowerPoint presentation. Two Ghits (both for her apparently winning a Pampers sweepstakes). NawlinWiki 16:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 admin/CSD A7.--Andeh 19:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim sansom[edit]

Patently nonsense vanity page. Was speedied by tag was removed Nuttah68 16:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xange[edit]

Was prodded, tag removed by creator. nn neologism, article states the term was coined in July 2006. Delete. Oldelpaso 16:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schizm[edit]

A local band, presently unsigned, which appears to fail WP:MUSIC by quite a margin. If this is deleted, a redirect to Schism should be left in its place. Middenface 16:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mazin[edit]

Describes a common name. The one working link is to a person who does not appear to use that name.KarenAnn 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Lowell[edit]

I consider for deletion the article, considering the number of biased, unreferenced statements contained within the article, rendering the content unverifiable. The person is also not notable enough to have a place on wikipedia. A "politically" associated person, who got a few votes in a general election in a country of 400,000 persons. Notability is disputed. Maltesedog 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now tend to agree with your reasoning captain. Its a healthy discussion going on. Maltesedog 14:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McCormick Ranch[edit]

Appears to be a straight promotion for selling house. Only link at bottom goes to advertising site. KarenAnn 17:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 05:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McGowan[edit]

Appears to be vanity page for this last name, of no particular note. KarenAnn 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this page! Surnames are important, especially to young people trying to research their family history.

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watson Realty Corp.[edit]

Realty company in N. Fla. & S. Ga.; nonnotable/advertising NawlinWiki 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memoire of Love[edit]

Describes obscure book with unknown author: Mr. X. Article falls apart at the end. KarenAnn 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP Fields[edit]

Strong delete - this is clearly a hoax. He claims to be a former president of Auburn University, which can be debunked here: 1 and a current board member at Tulane University, which can be debunked here: 2. Fabricationary 17:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Haywood Yaskell[edit]

Nonnotable science researcher/writer; seems like vanity article. NawlinWiki 17:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Methyphobia[edit]

This is not a useful clinical term. Link at bottom of page goes to website selling a book on phobias that cures fear of flying and "and Over 1,300 Other Phobias" KarenAnn 17:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vyomesh[edit]

Dicdef of a sanskrit word/name as an excuse to add bios for non-notable people. As there are no articles on people named Vyomesh, no point in this as a disambiguation page Xyzzyplugh 18:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZX Processor[edit]

Probable hoax. Google turns up nothing and the article text is generic, vague, and unbelievable (for example, a passively cooled synchronous 6.5 GHz VLSI microprocessor is practically impossible with modern MOS technology). uberpenguin @ 2006-07-08 18:12Z

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DanV[edit]

Originally speedied, but I decided to bring this to AFD. No vote on my part. Note that some who have voted at the related Le Saut De L'Ange and Hey! (2005) voted to delete saying they were a hoax. Roy A.A. 18:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 05:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Bank[edit]

This page is a collection of opinions (not facts) on community-based voting patterns in India, and has very little connection to the broader context of votebank politics. Gamesmasterg9 18:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every sentence is based on references listed,Plz take pain to read them.Holywarrior 14:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that many pages link here because it was linked to Vote bank's older version, which was redirected to this new article. Kevin_b_er 08:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has redirect from Vote bank which has last version as [34],one may easily coclude which page should have been redirected to which place,I just followed Chandal,Chandala redirect story.Anyway one had to be redirected to other.--Holywarrior 08:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still keep, only clean it up. Currently, it's a little messy. utcursch | talk 17:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Light[edit]

WP:BAND Non-notable band. Zero hits in GraceNote. One self-published CD in Amazon.com (Sales rank: None) John Nagle 18:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. http://dancinglightmusic.com/EPK/heraldreview07132003.pdf http://dancinglightmusic.com/pdf/northlandpressgulfgala3.pdf Author of article: matotanka 12 July 2006

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Vescuso[edit]

Nonnotable athlete with an unimpressive 22 Google hits. Prod tag was removed without explanation. Maxamegalon2000 18:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well known athlete amongst the tennis community as well as the Marquette Alumni, Brophy Alumni, Bay Area community as well as the USTA. He has multiple Google hits and had many more until Marquette University archived the majority of the statistical and journalistic information regarding the tennis program.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.67.230 (talk • contribs)

The club does have an article, and so should it's renowned pro. Eric Vescuso is a well-known player in huge metropolitan area that has accomplished what few or no previous Northern California coaches and teams have ever done before, and that is win the California State Title in multiple divisions against the top tennis region in the country (Southern California). As well he had a solid career in NCAA division 1 top 50 program and has been ranked nationally mulitple times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Charldav (talk • contribs)

It should be noted that the Courtside Club article was created by User:Charldav after its mentioning at this page. --Maxamegalon2000 23:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Courtside Club has since been deleted for copyright violations. In the interest of full disclosure, I was the one who tagged the article for speedy deletion. --Maxamegalon2000 03:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I it is commendable that you deem yourself the bastion of truth and judger of worthiness for content, however, when an athlete is ranked nationally in an individual sport, and accomplishes things none or few have, it is noteworthy. I'm sure your talents could be put to better use than harassing a viable article. In addition, there are more than 22 google hits and that is saying more than the majority of the "notable" athletes contained in this index.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.67.230 (talk • contribs)

I merely nominated this article for deletion. It is for the Wikipedia community to determine its worthiness. There are now 26 Google hits for "Eric Vescuso", the four new hits being from Wikipedia. I must say, attacking Wikipedia editors and vandalizing their user pages does not add to the credibility of your arguments. --Maxamegalon2000 17:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eric Vescuso is a notable tennis pro and coach, and has worked with a host of very notable pros to improve their games. This is beyond having one of the highest winning percentages in Marquette history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.6 (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 was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Pop Music Collectibles[edit]

This is basically the same page that CD VINYL COLLECTIBLES was when I nominated it for deletion. It is an advertisement for a company with no assertions to notability that would fulfill WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Chaser T 18:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 23:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor, Mark[edit]

Dead friends or relatives are non-encyclopedic. –Gunslinger47 19:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was history merge with Current events in Hong Kong. Several things to take note of here. First, it is true that we now have two duplicate articles. Second, the page was moved by "copy-paste", which is the wrong way to move things because it fragments the article history. Note that calling for deletion because we already have an article and "there is no need to keep the history" is calling for a violation of the Gnu Free Documentation License which is absolutely fundamental to Wikipedia, and trumps consensus. Simple deletion of this article without deleting Current events in Hong Kong is therefore out of the question.

The reason for the nomination is that the article so far only contains current events from Hong Kong, and nothing from Macau. Against this, it has been argued that the article previously contained current events from Macau. It has then been pointed out that there are enough current events to justify a separate Current events in Macau article (although it should be noted that such an article does not yet exist, if anyone wants to create one, by all means do so.)

I am calling this a history merge primarily because a cop-paste move was executed, which needs to be fixed. It may happen that the article ought to cover both Hong Kong and Macau (which would mean moving the article back), but I will leave that discussion for the article's talkpage or Wikipedia:Requested moves. For now though, I'll consolidate the page histories. Since the article's current title suggests that the article is about Hong Kong only, I will delete the subsequent redirect (which will be without any history, so GFDL is upheld) as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current events in Hong Kong and Macau[edit]

Delete and move to Current events in Hong Kong. Article does not include news from Macau, and not updated by anybody who is interested in adding Macau news. Hong Qi Gong 19:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologise for the cut-and-paste move. I've changed the reason for deletion. Hong Qi Gong 19:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Edit history must be preserved. No original entry should be deleted as a cut-and-paste move. — Instantnood 21:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 05:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique McKinley[edit]

Non-notable singer -- one single released in Europe, no indication that it charted anywhere. ArglebargleIV 19:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Schools' Rugby Website[edit]

Fails Alexa test at rank of 547,000; also reads like an ad; was originally prodded by prod removed by sole author. Hbdragon88 19:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nobody's denying that you guys exist. We are only debating whether this site meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines according to WP:WEB. One of those guidelines is the Alexa rank - and at 547,000, it doesn't meet the 100,000 guideline. A Google saerch yields nothing on any media mention of the website. Therefore, it's not notable according to WP's guidelines, and thus should be deleted. Hbdragon88 20:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Servo Venia[edit]

Fails WP:BAND notability test. Not listed on Allmusic.com or Amazon. 962 Google hits. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freebord[edit]

This article was prodded and deleted but there was an objection to the prod at the talk page and later at deletion review. Procedural nomination, no recommendation from me. Haukur 19:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know, I have a hard time believing that you are sincerely asking for links or references. Didn't you sum it all up above when you said there were almost no google hits, or "zero" news items? Before quoting, once again, from the guideline that we all know. I really wonder what kind of "google trawling" you do. In any case, let me be quite clear. I'll be happy to start posting links and other excerpts from a broad range of publications, all written by real live reporters, into this discussion, if you promise to then add them as references to the article. Because I'm sure you'll agree - given your interest in google - that Freebord and its 125,000 google hits is just as important as frog cake and its 836 google hits. --JJay 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure why you're searching in french, or why you've chosen to personalise this by bringing up a minor article that I've edited, but if you'll notice that when I did edit it I added sources from The national heritage trust of South Australia, The Australian National University, and Australian Radio National - all found via my "interest in google." If you can please provide some actual sources, as opposed to odd character attacks, this would be a non-issue. - Aaron Brenneman 00:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I'm not personalizing anything, but I do have an aversion to people who dump misinformation into these debates - such as your remarks on few google hits, or no news hits- particularly when they can't be "arsed" to look, but do have the time to quote ad nauseum from guideline pages. I'll take your comment to mean that you plan on redacting your initial comment and will add references and links to the article. Here is a small sample. Note that there are many, many more article sources, including all the coverage in specialized publications and certain mass market publications, that can not be linked (Playboy, Spin, Japan Times etc.)--JJay 02:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Barron, Kelley. "Wheeler-Dealer". Forbes. 05.01.00 Online copy
  2. Gromer, John. "Chairman Of The Bord: Introducing Freebord, the world's first snowboard for the street." Popular Mechanics. April 3, 2002 Online copy
  3. Della Cava, Marco. "Snowboard's new terrain: Asphalt Pivoting 'oddity' gains momentum". USA Today, March 10, 2004: pg. D10. Online abstract
  4. Hamilton, Anita. "Who Needs Snow". Time Magazine. March 4, 2002. Article excerpt
  5. Hua, Vanessa. "S.F. entrepreneur has created a skateboard that works like a snowboard". San Francisco Examiner. October 13, 1999. Online copy
  6. McHugh, Paul. "A new deal for wheels: Breakthroughs are a long way from roller skates". San Francisco Chronicle. August 12, 2004. Online copy
  7. Cribb, Robert. "Of jabberwocky and snowboard joy in June". Toronto Star. June 13, 2005: pg. D.05 Article excerpt
  8. Ehringer, Gavin. "Innovative skateboards offer summer snow-free surrogate". Rocky Mountain News.March 23, 2005. Article excerpt
  9. Regenold, Stephen. "Gear Junkie: 'Snowboard' on pavement with ease". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. August 5, 2004. Online copy
  10. Copeland, Michael V. "The New Instant Companies". Business 2.0. June 1, 2005. Online copy
  11. Piacentini, Louie. "Endless winter' for snowboarders; Pair introduces Freebord to Canada". North York Mirror. April 3, 2005 Online excerpt
  12. University newspaper coverage: University of Toronto, Yale, University of Western Ontario
  • Great, brilliant in fact. So next time, when someone asks for sources can you just provide them, without the drama? I'm bloody unapologetic about not being "arsed" to download a 3Meg file to see an advertisement, or thinking that the burden is upon the person making claims to back them up. - brenneman {L} 06:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. -- Ravn 09:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely no passion on my part. If I felt passion, I might have written more initially than: Obvious growing trend. Many news hits from major publications...But why write more when my initial comment exactly summed up the situation? --JJay 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Michael Craddock[edit]

Non-important person biography --Zachblume 22:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merged to Brian Eno. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snake guitar[edit]

Delete as it is basically a dictionary entry. Gay Cdn 19:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 05:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Arts Network[edit]

Delete as this is advertisement. Gay Cdn 19:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, but merging would probably be a good idea - though the University of Reading article doesn't even mention it currently. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spark (University of Reading newspaper)[edit]

Delete as it a student newspaper with no notability documented outside the univeristy. Based on the history, there has been a lot of work done, but I can not see how it would ever become notable enough for inclusion. Gay Cdn 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Newton[edit]

Delete per WP:AUTO --Brian G 19:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RHS Cougar Battalion[edit]

NN high school JROTC thing --Macarion 19:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mordet i Grottan[edit]

Nonnotable Swedish rock song, released only on Internet NawlinWiki 20:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice attempt from the author, too bad it isn't a notable song. Nich 20:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Silvernich[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Luke Cornforth[edit]

Nominated for speedy, but asserts notability in the form of published books. Transferring here for comment. No vote from me. Stifle (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the original request for speedy, reason: "Non-notability (CSD A7), sounds like spam or copyvio, all one author's work..." As for publishing, it looks to me like one of those mail order publishing houses, still nn. (Also need to get Richard Cornforth which is just a redir) -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 12:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Computerjoe's talk 20:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Proto::type 10:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pussing[edit]

Delete Non-notable neologism made up by the author. Prod removed without comment Gwernol

KeepKevin says - please do not delete this. It is a perfectly legitimate activity and I included the origin of the word to help explain its background. I have removed the specific link to an external website but this was to a non-profit making site anyway, not a commercial enterprise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinbeds (talk • contribs)

Successful requests: 6,675,641 (191,285)
Average successful requests per day: 9,512 (27,326)
Successful requests for pages: 489,349 (11,561)
Average successful requests for pages per day: 697 (1,651)Kevinbeds 10:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note this ithe the user's second "vote" - each user only gets to express their opinion once. Gwernol 11:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[37]

  • Note First edit from brand new user. Fan-1967 14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note First edit from brand new user. Fan-1967 14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could I ask everyone involved in this debate to please try to remain calm and WP:CIVIL:civil? There have been inappropriate remarks thrown around by both "sides", and this debate is sinking into name calling and bitterness which helps no-one.
Kevin, the reason Google hits were brought up is that it is one way to measure the notability of a site. Because of the way Google's PageRank algorithm works it is a rough guide to the number of other sites that think your site is worthwhile. What is being (crudely) measured is how many other sites have written about your site. That's different from the number of people who visit your site, which is what the webstats show. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it reports on things that have found widespread use beyond their own narrow subject area. So, for example, if The Times had decided that Pussing was notable enough to write an article about it, then Wikipedia would cover this term with an article, using The Times article as it source.
Unfortunately I don't think "Pussing" has reached that level of notability yet. If you read Wikipedia's guideline on neologisms and especially verifiability you'll see more about this. Many thanks, Gwernol 12:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThanks for your latest comment Gwernol. I understand what you say about google but when the google stats were pointed out above by Tmopkisn, these were discredited by another user. Also, the problem about pussing is that it is a secret sexual practice breaking one of the last remaining taboos (non-private urination) so it is highly unlikely that the Times would offend their readers by covering it! What I can say is that if you do a search on google for the term pussing you will see that it has reached widespread coverage as the term is included on many other sites (inevitably adult ones), particularly if the search entry is combined with another sexual term (like peeing) in order to differentiate it from the sort of definitions mentioned above by Mithent.

Comment I suggest merging the content of this article with Urolagnia. That article could use some work anyway, and this editor might be the perfect person to do it. Dina 14:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your comment Dina. One of the problems I apparently seem to be having is explaining that Pussing is not just about Urolgnia or Urophilia, it is about employing strategy and tactics to bring two people together in a semi-public place to perform the actual act of doing and watching. There are more than enough words already for the act of urination and this is not just another one! Pussing means sitting in a bar, working out where things are, working out what can be seen where and by whom, determining who is around, making the physical move of getting a member of the wrong sex into a cubicle with a FULLY CONSENTING member of the right sex totally unobserved, staying unheard and undetected whilst in there and remaining totally unobserved on exit. This is not what Urolgnia or Urophilia is!!Kevinbeds 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Urolagnia is defined as : (also known as urophilia) a sexual fetish with a focus on urine and urination. While there are variants to any fetish, Pussing seems to fall well within the scope of that article on the subject. Look, it's very likely that your article is going to be deleted. If it's important to you that this subject be represented on Wikipedia, why not incorporate some of the content in your article into that existing one? If you feel the Urolagnia isn't well written, you can edit its content as well. That way, everyone can be satisfied. Dina 15:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK Dina I have done that. I just hope it doesn't start off another torrent of abuseKevinbeds 16:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWell, you'll probably get edited, but hopefully not abused. Thanks for helping sort this out peacefully. Dina 16:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI tried expressly to steer clear of how to advice, instead keeping it to the facts of what actually happens. But because this involves strategy and tactics it is necessary to explain what those are!Kevinbeds 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I keep trying to cite sources but these all seem to be poo-pooed on here! You must understand that the term relates to a secret sexual activity involving a taboo so all the sources are adult website related!! One is hardly likely to read about this activity in the pages of The Times!!Kevinbeds

Comment This word should be kept as it describes the activity without being to vulgar. I mean come on, it isn't a swear word so why should it be deleated? Wake up people, it is only a word after all, one of countless number of words that are floating around on the net and in books and dictionarys. [User:reedgj6052|--Reedgj6052 09:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)reedgj6052]][reply]

Comment Maybe Wikipedia should record the ISP Addresses from which the entries originate so it can be confident these are not from the same person, which is the inference here. I do NOT know who Reedgj6052 is and was delighted that his (or her) comment appeared in my favour out of the blue. There does seem to be a certain degree of paranoia here!!!Kevinbeds 14:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is normal practice in these discussions to make note of new users. It's not an accusation, but it is something to be aware of. IP addresses really wouldn't help, as it is not uncommon for users to ask a friend to post on their behalf. Fan-1967 15:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting! It may also, of course, be the case that somebody viewing the pages feels sufficiently strongly to want to join for the first time in order to add their view to the debate! Such participation is hopefully considered healthy!86.129.234.176 16:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC). Sorry - forgot I wasn't logged in - this one is from me!!!Kevinbeds[reply]

Can you please provide some reliable sources to show that this is not made up? Shouting louder and louder that it exists is not convincing anyone. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, you are stepping out of line. Comments like "if they have any, which I am seriously beginning to doubt" are offensive personal attacks and if you continue to make them you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I ask you again to remain calm and civil.

It is very important that you understand that verifiability is an absolute, inviolable cornerstone of Wikipedia. Quoting from that policy:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

You have not provided any reliable sources for the activity of Pussing. Until you do, the article will likely be deleted. Please read the verifiability policy carefully. Note in particular the simple idea that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth." Until your article reaches this threshold none of the other arguments matter.

You may find this unfair, but it is the definition of what an encyclopedia is. There are thousands of free and low costs web hosting companies where you can write an article on Pussing if you want to. Thanks, Gwernol 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1. You have overlooked the exclamation mark at the end of my parenthesis about other people's sexual activity. Have you never heard of humour? 2. It cannot be expected that reputable sources, as you call them, are likely to publish articles about a secret sexual activity breaking a taboo. If they did, their reputation would be called into question. 3. I did add what I considered to be a reputable internet source to the original article but the very first complaint was that this was an adult website, which is why I removed it, even though the website is non-commercial and non-profit making. 3. I have never asked anybody commenting to supply a source so I don't see the relevance of your point 3. 4. I do not want to write an article on pussing; what I was expecting is that Wikipedia would embrace developments in language, society and culture and be a pre-eminent reference source for such developments. I was clearly in error and, to be frank, now have an extremely poor opinion of Wikipedia. 5. I am not shouting louder and louder; I am simply trying to respond accurately to each point which is made. If you want proof that it exists, just search for it on the internet. If it didn't exist, it wouldn't be on so many independent webhsites. Or, to put it another way, why would websites seeking traffic in a highly competitive environment include pussing as a search term if nobody knew or did this? You talk about verifiability, not truth, but you yourself seem to be doubting the truthKevinbeds 07:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera Remixography[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. See also the previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Remixes of Beyonce Songs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kelly Clarkson Remixes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mariah Carey remixes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakira remixography. Extraordinary Machine 20:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spectragon[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. Roy A.A. 21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gao[edit]

Delete as a non-notable individual. Previous speedy deletion tag (hoax with no google hits) was removed by author. Gay Cdn 20:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streamwired[edit]

Delete as advertisement. Plus, linking to a site that (may) display copyright infringed video is frowned upon (as I learned in my own first edit) Gay Cdn 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, though given that the neutral opinions appear to me to be leaning towards delete, there should be no prejudice if the article is relisted fairly soon. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonpowered superheroes[edit]

I dunno. Is this a list people think is worth keeping? -- I don't. It's just a list in not particularly readable or useful format. KarenAnn 20:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Nominator, please list specific issues under Wikipedia:Deletion policy which you believe qualify this article for deletion. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 21:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected. Following merges, redundant articles should just be redirected (to preserve attribution as is necessary under the GFDL) - there's no need to take them to AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barataria (Gondoliers)[edit]

A merger proposal on the article's talk page was agreed by all who commented, and the relevant material has been incorporated in the article on The Gondoliers. Marc Shepherd 20:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Street Low 1:64 Releases[edit]

Delete as it is just a list which fails WP:NOT. The producers of the cars was determined to be notable enough in the last AfD done on it, but this list is not. Gay Cdn 20:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Institute of Software Technology, Kanpur[edit]

Delete as advertisement and also vanity as it was created by a user with the same name as the head of the organization. Gay Cdn 20:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. - Bobet 10:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabid Chipmunk[edit]

Delete as it fails WP:MUSIC. Gay Cdn 20:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hollowell[edit]

Delete - MLB umpire only for relatively brief period; worked no postseason or All-Star games, no significant regular season games. Hard to imagine the article ever being anything but a stub. (Also note that the article is an orphan.) (Article was previously marked for deletion by Seidenstud, tag was removed by another user.) MisfitToys 20:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the page - Five seasons seems significant to me. Players who have played few games/years are on this website. I'm not sure why the bias against umpires exists on this site. They work hard and make a contribution to baseball just like players and coaches. Ags412 20:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Ags412[reply]

Well, what about substitute umpires who are never on the regular staff but merely fill in during vacations or strikes? This is a really slippery slope. I'll note that all of the other post-1890 umpires with articles worked postseason (and usually All-Star) games. MisfitToys 20:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another point: There are fewer than 75 umpires that work MLB games in a year, but over 800 players, almost all of whom have pages on this site. In fact, being a major league umpire is a tougher accomplishment than being a major league player. Obviously players are more in the spotlight while umpires often go unnoticed, but this should not prevent them from having a page on this site. But it seems to me that if such a select group of people can accomplish something as difficult as becoming a major league umpire, if even for a short period of time, then that person deserves to be recognized on this website. Ags412 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the numerical comparison is entirely useful. Anywhere between 18 and 50 players appear in each game (sometimes even more in September), but only 4 umpires; there are fewer positions. Besides, shouldn't the article describe something the person did rather than just note their job title? Since you began the article, adding something in that respect would be useful. Players' accomplishments are easily quantifiable and varied and can be compared; umpires' work tends to be more uniform. The Wikipedia bio guidelines should be kept in mind; for sports officials, I'd suggest something similar to the criteria for professors (Ivy League profs could be regarded as working at the highest level, yet they don't automatically qualify for articles). MisfitToys 21:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The numerical comparison is relevent because it shows how much more difficult a position being an MLB umpire is to obtain as compared to being an MLB player. My point with that is that MLB players who appear in very few seasons and have "stubs" are not shut out from this site, so why should an MLB umpire be? Additionally, if you want more than his job, give it some time. This page has been up for less than 24 hours. Part of the reason it was put up is so anyone who knows something can contribute. Give them time to find it. Ags412 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, veteran umpires have union job protection, so talent isn't the only criteria for work; a pitcher who's no longer competent loses his job, but it's harder to get rid of a bad umpire who's been around for ten years. Besides, the uniformity of their work is a primary goal for umpires; uniformity is completely irrelevant (and essentially impossible) for players. MisfitToys 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which means it is even tougher to get a job in the major leagues because there are less openings. Therefore, breaking into the major leagues as an umpire for any amount of time is an extremely difficult feat in any respects and thus a "notable" accomlpishment.Ags412 22:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The southwest effect[edit]

That markets become more competitive whenever a new competitor comes in is not really new with Southwest Airlines. You could just as well call it the "Fox effect" or the "Japanese car effect". The only reference is an autobiography by the founder of the airline.Delete. Gazpacho 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: No reason given under Wikipedia:Deletion policy for this deletion. Nominator: please list specific reasons why this is eligible for deletion. Georgewilliamherbert 21:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason was "apparent neologism" but I've changed my mind now. Gazpacho 04:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are more and credible references. This effect is an economic principle specific to the airline industry and to the culture.

:*AFD is not a vote. Can you offer a reason why it should be kept? Fan-1967 21:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Never mind. I see from the history that the comment above was from the same editor. Fan-1967 22:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many credible references. True, the subject is an economic principle specific to the airline industry and to the culture, but it is studied by government, the press, economists, and private industry. It is in common usage and refers to a tendency that can be attributed generally to any airline that causes that effect. A Department of Transportation publication (as cited by Justin Ritter) defined it as "the characteristics of a low-cost carrier’s market entry and the side-effects that come with it. (DOT, 1993)" Searching for "Southwest Effect" in Google Print yields over 50 book citations. A Google Web search for "Southwest Effect" delivers links to well over 700 Internet sites using the phrase. Deleting the entry is not warranted. Wipfeln 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fraser Valley Gilbert and Sullivan Society[edit]

This is an article about a community theatre group. It cites no sources and is not notable. It has been tagged for almost three weeks as "unencyclopedic," and there have been no further edits. It is essentially a vanity article for that organisation. Marc Shepherd 20:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ssilvers 05:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, most minor community organizations are non-notable and don't exactly cut the mustard per WP:ORG. --Kinu t/c 04:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Speedy delete as ((nn-group)). Stifle (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Comic Preservation[edit]

Vanity page for a comics scanning bit-torrent group. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adult DVD rental[edit]

This article contains nothing whihc is not obvious from the title, and is historically a spam magnet. And those are its good parts. Just zis Guy you know? 20:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. 482,000 Google hits, obviously highly notable, and I see nothing in the article that a little clean-up couldn't fix. tmopkisn tlka 21:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL! The fact that there are adult DVD rentals is not in disupte; the fact that the meaning of the term "adult DVD rental" is blindingly obvious is the problme here! Just zis Guy you know? 21:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. What potential does this article have that isn't already quite adequately covered by Online DVD rental and our extensive series on pornography? I see none. Spam magnets are bad enough, useless spam magnets are worse. — Haeleth Talk 21:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Haeleth. There's no doubt the concept exists, but the debate here is not notability. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Haeleth. Just a series of ordinary words forming a phrase of no standalone importance. --DaveG12345 22:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Changing vote per Haeleth, he's right, pretty much the same content, except the latter is much better. tmopkisn tlka 23:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "You can rent adult DVDs online. It works just like normal online DVD rental." That's more or less what this article boils down to. As such, I really don't see why this merits a separate article. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. But darn, I won't be able to watch the appearance and removal of spam links on my watch list anymore. Tsk. Tony Fox (speak) 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not 100% sure how to add my comments here. If this article is going to stick around then it needs to be corrected. I work for XRentDVD, and we opened in July 1999 (verified by the wayback machine). There was one other site that went live around then, I think it was blueDVD.com. I'm not looking to be viewed as a spammer, which is why I didn't edit the page. If it is going to stay up at least have someone research and put in the facts MarcP 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Z-cult Fm[edit]

Self-promotion for another comics bittorrent site. Has an Alexa traffic rank of 38,013. Google hits for "z-cult fm": 943. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. -- Mithent 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mithent. --DaveG12345 05:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Artw 15:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 05:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18 Speed Tranny[edit]

Prod was removed by sole author, so I'll list it here. No real opinion, although the article sounds like it was written by a member of the band (especially the "influences" section), the band does seem to be somewhat notable. tmopkisn tlka 21:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the page author - The influence part has been modified, and if you do a google or yahoo search you will see that the band is notable.

Procedural note: Nominator, please list specific reasons under Wikipedia:Deletion policy under which this is eligible for deletion. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a Google search (which, FYI, brings up 26,000+ hits, but only 262 unique hits), they might or might not be somewhat (i.e. only slightly, but sufficiently for WP) notable. However, as it stands, the article asserts absolutely no notability at all. Thus, unless an article expansion occurs that shows me if/why these guys are actually significant, I have no choice but to vote speedy delete. -- Kicking222 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've just spent a while trawling through some of the Ghits. Most are related to either Chicago sites, or free music sites. I even searched at ASCAP [38] and BMI [39] where they weren't listed. Besides gigs in Illinois, they played a festival in Wisconsin this week! They've even got a listing as an "Irish" band on an Irish site. They do appear on a complilation album. They do deserve full marks for getting the promo out. --Richhoncho 22:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:BAND doesn't mention Google hits as a criterion for notability. Or at all. --DaveG12345 03:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the pages author - If it's the agenda of this website to present only things that everyone is already familiar with than what's the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stymets (talk • contribs)
    • I think you'd be able to make a better case if you hadn't gone around calling people dorks, and changing their comments. tmopkisn tlka 01:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the pages author - A case is a case regardless of my immaturity, besides I think Macaroni is a dork, just like he thinks the bands name is "crap" I'm entitled to my opinion. STYMETS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stymets (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Websters defines the word encyclopedia as a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. It does not say anything about being elitist or relevance of subject matter, and I would imagine that it would state that the complete opposite should be the case for an encylopedia that is supposed to be freely available and created by the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stymets (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Close to a speedy, but I think it just about asserts notability. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nijmegen Centre for Border Research[edit]

Nominating this article was proposed in the related AfD discussion of Henk van Houtum. This article appears to be mostly vanity (possible non-notability as well) as indicated by the over-use of external links, and the only page linking in is Henk van Houtum. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Speedy delete as nn-band. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Ability[edit]

Fails WP:BAND notability test. Article admits that the band is "yet to release any songs or E.P's to the public and it now seems increasingly more unlikely due to the fact that the band member's are always on a temporary hiatus". --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since they have, by their own admission, no ability. Just zis Guy you know? 22:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I don't think there's any assertion of notability contained in the article whatsoever. -- Kicking222 22:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Steel 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Spectacular notability assertion failure, despite a lot of detailed trivia. 'The more recent smash "Thursday Night"' - a "smash" on MSN, whatever that entails - isn't quite what WP:MUSIC is asking for. --DaveG12345 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per criterion A7 -- no notability asserted. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 23:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast-Host[edit]

Spam for a nn webhosting service. Fan-1967 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. -- Steel 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7 cannot be used for a company. Someone already tried that. Fan-1967 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, just regular delete then. -- Steel 22:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALSAP[edit]

Self promotional article for the Alaska Lost Ski Areas Project website. No Alexa traffic rank listed. Fails WP:WEB. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  21:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Educational Ministries[edit]

Self promotional article for a non-notable organisation. Google hits for "Christian Educational Ministries" = 635. No mentions in notable 3rd party publications. Fails WP:ORG. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  22:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsure. Do they really have a 'radio show'? If it is actually syndicated, I might say to keep. 600 hits within their own little range of web pages is a bit non-notable for a modern organization. Probably delete per Netsnipe.
  • Delete per nom. Also the text uses "We" repeatedly and looks like it was lifted from another source. Artw 01:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stifle - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Clay (author)[edit]

NN, 52 ghits for ""James Clay" author whist" --Macarion 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and correct The article does fail to establish notability. ""James Clay" whist" gives me 91 articles, some of which claim he was a member of parliament; if this is correct, the article should be revised to indicate this (and doubtless not deleted). boisestate.edu article. It says James Clay, M.P. ... I don't have the know-how to verify the claim or add more information; maybe I will have PedanticallySpeaking try to find him. --Matthew 23:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep per above; historical figure according to present content. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence is provided that he meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. It would be better if people didn't add substubs like this, but having an article in the ODNB pushes him well over the threshold of notability for the Encyclopedia of Pokemon and Obscure Baseball Players. Another point (for the nominator): please don't use a low number of Google hits as proof of non-notability for historical persons like this. Try other sources first. up+land 13:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Commons[edit]

Advertising for non-notable website. BoojiBoy 23:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Only relevant Google hits are the website itself and its page on various Wikis. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-- NN. According to the article, the site has a whopping 147 users worldwide. Maybe after they have a few thousand and stop meeting in living rooms they would have a bit more of a place in an encyclopedia. --Matthew 23:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 00:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 01:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I made quite a few edits to try to bring it into line with wiki guide lines... but I have to be honest, I can't defend it's place on

wikipedia. It's non-noteable and advertimenty. (a-toad-a-so) Mike McGregor (Can) 05:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request could closing admin drop a line on my talk with a link to where ever this discussion gets archived to? Thanks. Mike McGregor (Can) 05:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was merge already performed - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Every Woman (Whitney Houston single)[edit]

It is suggested that this be merged to the I'm Every Woman page; I agree. Perhaps a redirect would be best. I considered doing it myself, but decided that a bit of community consideration would be better. There are probably a lot of songs out there like this (with articles for every cover ever done). Matthew 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. This is the problem with having a chronology in singles infoboxes IMO. But I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs nevertheless *currently* asks for covers to be under one article (could be wrong, the project has not got its policies sorted out yet). Examples to emulate if merging might include Twist and Shout and War (song). --DaveG12345 03:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with I'm Every Woman. Capitalistroadster 05:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into I'm Every Woman. Both articles are rather short (the article on the Houston version was deceptively long because of generous use of section headers and excess detail) and they are the same song, so it's more useful to have the info in one place. On a related note, I think there should be more discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Songs. That way we can establish a consensus about whether separate articles for different versions of a song are necessary. Extraordinary Machine 13:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is this at AfD? Just merge the articles as a sensible editorial decision. There's no need to delete anything. Jkelly 00:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with I'm Every Woman. There's stuff like this happening all over Wikipedia. --Kristbg 14:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Now that we have one song category per artist, let's get one article per song.--Mike Selinker 15:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was CSD A7 - CrazyRougeian talk/email 07:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marlena Hall (Troncoso)[edit]

Colorist on a few independent comics; not notable in my opinion. NawlinWiki 23:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom, though she has woked on some well known titles. Are there guidelines for notability when it comes to indie comics folks that would help clarify this? Artw 00:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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