Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 13

Purge server cache

February 14

[edit]

 

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:44, 19 February 2006

List of born-again Christian laypeople

[edit]

As discussed in here, "laypeople" is fuzzy and useless, and "born-again" is either useless, or includes only those Christians who we can verify actually said "I am born-again" — leaving us with a very small or empty list. But is it even worth making this distinction?

I have been trying to get the list merged, but since we can't agree on where to merge it to, we should simply delete it. Any important people should already be in a list by denomination. ··gracefool |☺ 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I agreed with delete, "support" might look confusing here) "Born-again" is kind of becoming a catch phrase term that's perhaps not very meaningful and difficult to pin down. The Barna Poll people do try by defining born-agains as "people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior."[1] It'd be difficult to verify who believes all those things and also that definition is kind of vague. Plus this term can be contentious because of confusion.--T. Anthony 06:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a thought. When I go to wikipedia, I am looking for an overview first (what the *#$& is this term?) then I can always delve deeper using the extra links. A list of people who have actually referred to themselves as "born again" is simply useless - EVEN to born-again Christians since no one can really know if they ARE born-again or just claiming to be. I'd just like a list of Christians first (by some guideline... protestant?) then leave the subtleties for further study. This whole argument has devolved into "he's not REALLY a TRUE CHRISTIAN (tm)". I'd ask "Who is?" Using "born-again" as a category is just biased. Alice Cooper is a self-professed Christian at age 58 and has said as much in 2006 on his radio show which airs all over the place. Easily verifiable and yet.... did he say "I am a BORN-AGAIN (tm) Christian"? No. Yet, if asked, he'd say he gave his life to Jesus, repented, baptised, etc.

An encyclopedia cannot (and should not) hold Ph.D.-level data. It is for the LAY PEOPLE to get a basic grip on a term. If they need more, there's a lifetime of study available on the web now. Just my 2 cents. Tim Simmons 2006/02/13

This is a religion related list. Therefore lay people means the "laity" i.e. people who are not ordained. PhD or no PhD is not really the issue. People on this list may or may not have a PhD, it makes no difference.--T. Anthony 18:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.SoothingR 10:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formulating knowledge for learning

[edit]

Looks like an ad for a website. I don't think the title makes for a potentially useful article, especially given the number of other articles on learning. ··gracefool |☺ 04:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily redirected to Jesus-Myth. Peyna 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ myth

[edit]

Same as Jesus-Myth TaeKwonTimmy 04:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and close AfD, because article was an inappropriate POV fork. The redirect was already accomplished by the time I viewed the page. It would probably be appropriate to merge the content of this article, including the mention of the eponymous book, into Jesus#Questions of Reliability, but this was not done. Ikkyu2 04:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:45, 19 February 2006

Elisa Eliot

[edit]

Non-notable actress. Only notable film she was in, she was cut from. Delete. Makemi 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that IMDB page consists entirely of one straight to video release. Makemi 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:46, 19 February 2006

Degree audit

[edit]

Perhaps an interesting topic, but it's just copied from this source James Kendall [talk] 00:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:46, 19 February 2006

Moonranker

[edit]

Yet another advertisement, I vote Delete Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:47, 19 February 2006

Brawl hall

[edit]

Delete nn website Aaronw 01:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:47, 19 February 2006

Heynonnynonny

[edit]

A non-notable website that fails WP:WEB and doesn't say why (or even whether) it is notable. Less than 200 Google hits. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 01:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:48, 19 February 2006

Jessica Gore

[edit]

Completely non-notable musician. 105 unique hits, many of which have nothing to do with her. Delete (preferably speedily). Makemi 01:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete redirect page Jessicagore

Comment If you delete this then you should also delete Image:Jgalbumart.jpg Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Philharmonic Dining Rooms

[edit]

Nothing seems to differentiate this from thousands of other pubs, other than art deco design, and Grade II listing (which is not uncommon, there are about half a million in England). -R. fiend 01:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:49, 19 February 2006

Tupple

[edit]

A new sport that is "primarily played by the technical crew at the National Student Drama Festival in Scarbrough." Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims in the article. --Allen3 talk 01:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:50, 19 February 2006

Platform Hero

[edit]

flash cartoon with no claim to notability, created by anon over a redirect to Platform hero Savidan 01:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FireFox • T • 12:50, 19 February 2006

Happiness is

[edit]

Personal essay/original research. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Allen3 talk 01:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyre Forest Community Church

[edit]

Unnecessary and Incorrect, see Talk Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaesthetic (talk • contribs)

No offense inteded against this particular church, but established is not the same thing as Notable. My church is 120 years old and it doesn't deserve an entry in an encylopedia either. Thatcher131 14:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm very sad that you won't allow wikipedia users access to information about your 120 year old church, and I think it's pretty dubious to claim to offer us the sum of human knowledge while denying us these things. I try to vote with my conscience. Kappa 18:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.SoothingR 20:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MCI Kidderminster Church

[edit]

Unnecessary and Incorrect, see WFCC Talk Page

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. Criteria A7). --Allen3 talk 02:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Strange

[edit]

AFD tag added by Obaten, but not finished. Speedy Delete as nn-bio. Fightindaman 02:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.SoothingR 20:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of places inspiring definitions in The Meaning of Liff

[edit]

Delete: non-encyclopedic. This is a list of towns whose names sounded funny enough to Douglas Adams and John Lloyd to inspire them to put more made-up words in their two Liff books. The article serves no purpose. Brian Kendig 02:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted --Durin 14:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P0rk

[edit]

Non-notable website Cnwb 02:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean: "if Savidan is correct"? There's a link right there in my post! Savidan 06:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messianotechnism

[edit]

First-person original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan sun

[edit]

Delete Non-notable band. They aren't signed to any label and has not released an album. Giojume 03:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy and Mandy The TV Movie

[edit]

Delete. The article has been created by a series of suspiciously similar authors, including "EDDY" and "EDDY AGAIN". The information is presented without anything in the way of sources, and includes such ridiculous sections as "Possible Quotes". Lucky number 49 03:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gahmen

[edit]

Unverified, probable hoax, not even that funny Savidan 03:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus default to keep. - ulayiti (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire_Millen

[edit]

We already have an article on Matt Millen. This information should be placed in a section in Matt Millen's article, which I did at first, but it was reverted. Why we don't want readers to read all about Millen on just one page is beyond me. This isn't a big enough "cultural phenomenon" to be listed on one page, in my opinion. Aplomado 03:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup; if not that, then merge and redirect. However, I feel that the subject is sufficiently notable and became a large part of pop culture vernacular in late 2005. -- Andy Saunders 03:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why not just include a section on it in "Matt Millen"? Aplomado 03:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because when someone searches for Fire Millen, they won't find the information in Matt Millen if the article's deleted (hence my "merge and redirect if not keep"). --Andy Saunders 03:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting is fine by me. Aplomado 03:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as a pissed off Lions fan for more years than I can count, I can understand why this article exists, but it's not of any great cultural significance to anyone other than Lions fans in Detroit. Merge it to Matt Millen and slap anyone who tries to revert.--Isotope23 03:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Matt Millen. I suppose some people might be puzzled about seeing signs about a football executive at a basketball or hockey game and look up the slogan itself. --Metropolitan90 04:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Or, merge and redirect. -Ikkyu2 07:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)) I ran across this article a couple of months ago, was poised to AfD it, then read the article and the Matt Millen article and came to think otherwise. The slogan itself is notable because of all the darn signs on TV. Ikkyu2 04:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, be that as it may, why not just include it in a section on Matt Millen? In its current state, people who want to read about Matt Millen must read his bio and then go to "Fire Millen" to get the whole story. Wouldn't it be more efficient to simply merge the two? These two subjects are so closely connected that it's senseless to separate them. Aplomado 05:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for repeating myself. I'll shut the hell up now. Aplomado 07:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reading on Wikipedia:Redirects that if someone else feels like a redirect is useful, it's probably useful. Therefore, I'm going to add "or merge and redirect" to my vote, because I don't particularly feel like that'd be a bad idea. I have noticed, however, that quite often when AfD consensus is 'merge and redirect', what ends up happening is a redirect with no merge. Ikkyu2 07:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of merging if it is redirected. Aplomado 08:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aplomando already had a pretty good merge that got reverted.--Isotope23 14:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect, appears to be of signficance to Lions fans in Detroit. Kappa 10:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The movement to fire Matt Millen is of enough current significance to warrant a seperate page. In the future, however, I would suggest a Merge and Redirect. JKBrooks85 13:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's even of current significance... Since they hired Marinelli as Head Coach and he brought in Mike Martz as the offensive coordinator you don't hear anything in Detroit about firing Millen, even on sport talk radio stations. Lions fans are a fickle bunch. If the Lions make the playoff's this year people will be calling for a statue of Millen to be erected. If they go less than 8-8, they will be dusting off their "Fire Millen" signs again.--Isotope23 14:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but until they get that 9-7 record to take the pressure off of Millen, there will be a movement against him. It's as much a current events article as any other, and until something happens to change the situation, I'd say to Keep it. JKBrooks85 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Matt Millen. No more notable than any other fan campaign to fire an unpopular general manager or head coach. Fans have wanted to can the leaders of their sports teams since the beginning of sport, and the Lions are no more special than the Oilers or the 49ers or any other major team. Lord Bob 17:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Matt Millen as per Bob. Ziggurat 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Metropolitan90. Steve Casburn 04:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Closed due to no need for AfD nomination. Nominator can get an admin such as myself to delete the page and then move. Capitalistroadster 06:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Six Nations Championship

[edit]

The article Rugby Union Six Nations Championship has an overlong name for no reason. AFAIK there is no other competition called Six Nations Championship. In order to move the former article to the latter title I need to have this redirect page deleted GordyB 03:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel_advertising_concept

[edit]

Delete. With extreme prejudice. It's a promotional brochure, not a Wikipedia article. Rufus Sarsaparilla 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Monaghan

[edit]

non-notable owner of a slightly notable record label Thatcher131 03:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information Tetanus

[edit]

Delete. Original research. IceKarmaॐ 04:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsense and non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 06:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daneil Simounds

[edit]

Crap, nonsense, non-notable, hoax, vanity...etc. Batman2005 04:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Botequim

[edit]

Delete Maybe this should go to Wiktionary? I'm not sure, but I don't think it needs to be its own article Aaronw 04:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile!. Mailer Diablo 03:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power glove (band) & their Total Pwnage self-album

[edit]

Non-notable band. Prod tag was removed, so it's being sent to AfD Cnwb 04:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look on Domfeargrieve's Talk page, when he was accused of using sock puppets and forging other user identities to his posts, he claimed in reply that somone was using his account without permission. Since by the user's own admission these statements were not made by him, it seems perfectly reasonable to indicate that they are not real votes. Thatcher131 11:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems perfectly reasonable to me for him to strikethrough his own comments if he claims that he did not make them. However, that does not mean that you should strike through a someone else's statements as well based on something he says. Savidan 15:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out repudiated text is a service to the community that may be performed by anyone. Snottygobble 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to J. G. Thirlwell. - ulayiti (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garage Monsters

[edit]

Delete. Minor side-project of J. G. Thirlwell. Relevent information has been merged into J. G. Thirlwell article. I am the original creator of the article, and the first six edits of the page are mine. Rynne 05:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Mailer Diablo 03:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman The Fan Series

[edit]

Creator keeps removing PROD tag without discussion. Page doesn't assert meeting WP:WEB, doesnt seem to have been covered by good sources. --W.marsh 05:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, hence keep. Ifnord 03:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Monotypes

[edit]

An obscure band that is tired of today's bands that strive for fame and hype (article's own words). So why should they be here? On other hand, one of their songs was used in an episode of Grey's Anatomy. Would that suffice to establish notability?. Daniel Case 05:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to WP:MUSIC, "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)" is a notability criterion. They haven't had a theme song, but I'd say they're hovering just on the edge of notability. Weak delete. Snurks T C 08:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I found a review of the band here. However, a Google search on the magazine they were reviewed in puts the magazine's notability on the fence as well. I agree with Snurks that this is a tough call. But a song used as one-off incidental music in a TV show is not nearly as notable as a song used as a theme, and given the volume of band articles, taking a hard line on WP:BAND might not be a bad thing. Vslashg 10:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dilemma Recordings is independent label. They say they are obsucure they are right Defunkier 13:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have had music on major television drama series. Cnwb 22:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though they are not well known, except for an episode of Grey's Anatomy, they still deserve a page. The fact that they were on the show could make them more widely known by those who liked the song on the show. VincentGross 05:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Carruthers

[edit]

unencyclopedic bio - person looks to be unpublished; is apparently without academic credentials; minus the site of his own organization (www.soulwork) a google search for his name only brings up a few hundred unique hits Mayumashu 05:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===[[Runaway train (

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as test page and patent nonsense. Capitalistroadster 07:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robbit

[edit]

I'm pretty sure that this isn't information Serlin 06:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

  • I am sure that it is a useful article... a Robbit is something that many people around here have come to know and love, however need some definition explaining.... hence this article....

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.216.63 (talk • contribs)

  • as people discover what we know about this "robbit", it shall appear, however, we have put down that which we do know. Robbit never die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.216.63 (talk • contribs)


  • I was unaware of what a Robbit was until this article. I found it very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamemily (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 07:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nochex

[edit]

Basically the article is an advertisement. Delete TheRingess 06:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Strikers

[edit]

advertisement for non-notable fancruft which has not even been produced Savidan 06:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 09:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Moynihan

[edit]

It's juvenile rubbish. NN and claptrap. I tried to speedy it but the editor removed the speedy deletion tag Delete Maustrauser 07:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dont delete it, everything that opinional is just amusing, the rest is FACTUAL. i dont see the basis for deletion. Imantisocial 07:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Gloss Productions

[edit]

Advertisement for non notable company. Delete TheRingess 07:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crispy bangs

[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. NoIdeaNick 07:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eminent people of the world

[edit]

Content is repetitive with Lists of people, bad content forking. I suggest that the page be deleted and then a redirect be created. Savidan 08:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Mike & Bernie Winters. - ulayiti (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schnorbitz

[edit]

Non-notable dog, followed by nice story about an unrelated even less notable dog. If article about owner created some day can be mentioned there. Weregerbil 08:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 03:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verbungula

[edit]

Vanity article for nn language. Both links are to geocities pages Savidan 08:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 09:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Woodford

[edit]

Not wikipedia style, may be copyvio (even says from where the information was copied), appears to advertise some sites. I'm not sure about the notability of this person. The editors nickname ("crap11") doesn't inspire much confidence either. Nyh 08:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The show it mentions is real. If it is not a copyright violation then it should stay. Guy did have his own TV show on a major cable network. Needs to be wikified and is just a cut and paste of an obit but I would say it deserves to stay.
  • The text in the article is a word-for-word copy of [16]. Nyh 08:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks, Nyh, you made the job of adding the copyvio template much easier. Ikkyu2 09:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no censensus.SoothingR 20:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere expectation criterion

[edit]

POV; original research; few Google hits Markus Schulze 09:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is problematic because of the following reasons:
  1. Original research. Few Google hits. This criterion is only known at the Election Methods mailing list.
  2. Obviously, the only thing the author of this article wants to say is that, when MinMax(pairwise opposition) is being used, then ranking an additional candidate sometimes helps but never hurts an already ranked candidate. But to say this, there is no need to invent a new criterion. You could simply say that MinMax(pairwise opposition) satisfies later-no-harm and violates later-no-help.
  3. The article is POV. The author of this article uses this criterion to argue against "Condorcet methods where the strength of pairwise defeats are assessed by the votes for the winning side". He mentions MinMax(pairwise opposition) as an example. But MinMax(pairwise opposition) isn't a Condorcet method in the proper sense because it doesn't satisfy the Condorcet criterion. When I asked the author for a concrete example of a Condorcet method that violates the sincere expectation criterion, he was unable to give such an example.
Markus Schulze 10:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of whether one believes in whether the criterion causes a differentiation between methods using margins and winning votes (see Talk:sincere expectation criterion for that discussion), this was the original intention. The discussion arguing the merits of both method types figures prominently at the Condorcet method article, under the section Defeat strength, so it's in the interest of NPOV to give and expand on the counter argument against those criteria in favor of winning votes, especially since Mike Ossipoff single-handedly created a whole bunch of them and these also have been given Wikipedia articles.
The fact that the criterion has only been mentioned on the election methods mailing list doesn't itself make it original research, but is rather a testament of the esoteric nature of the discussion. Given this, it was introduced more than 7 years ago and has since then been regularly referred to and even been generalized by others, so it can be considered to be standing the test of time. Still, if one is interested in a source besides the mailing list, see [17], where Blake Cretney gives a future-to-be informal description of the criterion:
[...]winning-votes only works by making it bad strategy to leave candidates unranked at the end of the ballot. It has no special insight into the true preferences of voters. In effect, it simply reduces the value of all incomplete ballots, in that they would on average be much better at achieving the voter's goal if completed, randomly if necessary.
-- Dissident (Talk) 16:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Blake Cretney's quotation can be summarized as follows: "MinMax(pairwise opposition) satisfies later-no-harm and violates later-no-help. Therefore, when MinMax(pairwise opposition) is being used, then it makes sense to give different rankings to the least preferred candidates even when you are indifferent between them." Blake Cretney's criticism doesn't require the introduction of a new criterion. Markus Schulze 18:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the context of the 1998 discussion between Blake Cretney and Mike Ossipoff one can deduce that the discussion was between margins and (what is now called) winning votes, since Ossipoff was first of all promoting a Condorcet method. It's true that in above linked article Blakey Cretney's phrasing has mistakenly been too strong, such that he's claiming later-no-harm plus the violation of later-no-help ("In fact, in winning-votes it is never justifiable, even for strategic reasons, to leave candidates unranked, as long as your goal is to elect the best possible candidate from your perspective."), but the sincere expectation criterion is a different criterion, as it makes a zero-info strategy claim based on expected utility. -- Dissident (Talk) 21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, IRV supporters usually argue that, when a Condorcet method is being used, then the probability that an additional ranking hurts an already ranked candidate is higher than the probability that an additional ranking helps an already ranked candidate and that, therefore, the voters will use bullet voting. It makes a big difference whether someone makes a prediction about how the voters will vote under a concrete election method or whether someone proves that a concrete election method violates a given criterion. What you call sincere expectation criterion is not more than a hypothesis about how the voters will vote under a certain family of Condorcet methods. However, it is not a criterion in the proper sense because without additional presumptions it is not possible, just by looking at the underlying algorithm, to say whether a given election method satisfies it. Markus Schulze 15:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The debate hinges on whether the Internet Election Mailing List is a reputable source. If it's moderated for content and has more than 5000 subscribers, it probably meets the notability guidelines; otherwise it doesn't. Does anyone know more? ikkyu2 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Election Methods mailing list is not moderated. Markus Schulze 10:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: The sincere expectation criterion was mentioned by Blake Cretney only in a single thread. And this thread is more than 7 years old [18]. Markus Schulze 13:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A4018 road

[edit]

Making this nomination on behalf on 81.106.249.225. The reason given on the PROD tag is something like: "getting articles down to this level without any useful information is verging on the obsessive... - this is not a trunk route, and Wikipedia is not CBRD)". Kappa 09:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is a good stub on an A-road and this information is not something any self-respecting encyclopedia of British road transport could do without. Kappa 09:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the benefit of those not party to this particular in-joke, can you please explain why the line "The A4018 is an British A-road which runs from Bristol city centre to Cribbs Causeway via places such as Westbury-on-Trym." on a page by itself is something we cannot do without? I'd be all for keeping this as a separate article if the road actually had some shred of importance attached to it, however, it doesn't even have that (to which I can personally attest, having travelled down it several times). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.28.195 (talk • contribs)
    I believe this road has a least a shred of importance to the inhabitants of Westbury on Trym Kappa 23:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the lifts in my high-rise office building have at least a shred of importance to the thousands of people who also work there. Not only do they number more than the residents of Westbury-on-Trym (which, BTW, is hyphenated), the lifts probably carry more people than the A4018. Since we do not, and clearly should not, have an article for Ty Glas Towers lift no. 6, by logical deduction there's less reason to keep this as a separate article. Merge/redirect into a series of articles a la Roads By Ten might seem sensible, but keeping separate articles is going to lead to a serious case of stubitis - lots of stubs but no actual content. Similarly, if the best reason you can come up with for keeping it is effectively "Well, why not?", then keeping as is most definitely cannot be the answer. Of course, this may be different where you come from, but here on Earth this is certainly the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.28.195 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per Kappa MLA 10:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa Siva1979Talk to me 11:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. --Terence Ong 14:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the stub is at least fairly informative and to the point. But if this were to be deleted, anyone recreating the article could do just as well with trivial effort... and this road is clearly pretty unimportant. Mangojuice 18:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we keep american numbered roads dont we? (genuine question, not being faceatious) Jcuk 23:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mu. It's difficult to compare, due to te fact that in the UK we number roads by classification (M > A1 > A2 > B, Ax > Axx/Axxx > Axxxx) whereas in the US there are three parallel systems. There are the national networks, the US highways and Interstate highways (confusingly, neither has to cross a state boundary), of which you can't have one of each of the same number in the same state (I-5 runs along the west coast, US-5 is in New England). Then there are the state networks, some of which skip the numbers of any nationals in there (e.g. there is no CA-5, as California defines route 5 in its system to be I-5). Then some states delegate county routes, which may in some cases duplicate both national and state numbers. I think there is some effort to get down to major county roads in California, being so large and having such an extensive road network, but some of these may be more important than state-level roads in other states (maybe they have fewer roads in the state, maybe the state doesn't delegate to counties, or whatever). Being "a numbered road serving X, Y and Z" isn't much. ISTR one case surviving on merit of it being the shortest signed numbered route in the state (some are unsigned - think C-roads). Note that "worthy of record" != "worthy of own article". "worthy of record" < "worthy of section" < "worthy of article". I figure the best we could do for this would be something akin to the List of B-roads floating around, i.e. "A4018: Bristol - Westbury-on-Trym - Catbrain - Cribbs Causeway - M5". One sentence on route and name of interesting place does not make an article, and I fear there is nothing more to know about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.28.195 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as per precedent on British A-roads. I've added a tiny smidgeon more info. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The less-informed might wish to know that A-roads are like second-class degrees. They are not a single class, but two subclasses. In much the same way that you can't hold a 2:1 and a 2:2 on par (this being the effective boundary between a "good" degree and an "average" one), you have primary and secondary As. Primary As are typically worth writing about. Primary As into four digits typically have good reason for being so. Secondary As in two or three digits may sometimes be former primaries that have been de-trunked. Some 4-digit A2s might be worth writing home about (e.g. the A3400, a.k.a. Henley-in-Arden to M42 on what used to be the primary A34). Others, like this, are of predominantly (perhaps even purely?) local interest. Precedent is not to keep topics of purely local interest, and I'm not convinced that a case can be made that this road is of serious non-local interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.28.195 (talk • contribs)
    Meanwhile, the more-informed will be aware that there was debate here recently about whether B-roads should have articles - and that debate ended in an approximate stalemate. If B-roads are right on the border of notability, then A-roads are surely over that border. BTW, you do your case no good by not signing your comments - four tildes is all you need to type (~~~~). Grutness...wha? 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A great internet encyclopedia should have everything including road articles and topics of local interest. We all view the world through POV prisms dictated by our local surroundings. -- JJay 08:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per JJay & Grutness. Captain scarlet 17:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as copyvio. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Meyer Burnett

[edit]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Speedy delete. I'm in a revert war with the author over the speedy tag on these pages, and can't figure out any better course of action than to list this on AfD in search of community consensus.

Robert Meyer Burnett was previously speedy-tagged as copy-vio and deleted, but the author reposted it and now removes the {{db-repost}} tag. It is a straight copy-and-paste of http://convergence-con.org/guests/robertmeyerburnett_02.php .

I likewise speedy tagged Mark A. Altman as copy-vio as a copy of http://www.mindfireentertainment.com/principals.php , but the author keeps removing the tag before any admin decides one way or the other. Vslashg 09:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project HDTP

[edit]

NN game mod. Only 1,000 or so google hits. I originally Prod tagged this, but it was removed twice, and a new paragraph was added that is practically slobbering over the mod. Drat (Talk) 10:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Crystal ball, they haven't released anything yet. Also, prod tags should not be reinstated if removed, just bring it here if the deletion is controversial. Night Gyr 11:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete -- Give it a break. Nothing is being advertised; there is no need to delete an article which seeks only to inform. I fail to see an issue here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleriah (talk • contribs) 23:00, February 14, 2006
  • Delete - Singular unreleased game mod, not notable as of yet anyway - Skysmith 12:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Daniel Case 16:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - Keep the article. I wrote it to inform people about the project. It isn't my fault people came along and put in a bunch of POV to make it sound like an advertizement. We need to fix the article not delete it completely. Besides the mod is in beta testing phase and is going to be released in a matter of weeks. --Jayson Virissimo 17:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't be notable, since it hasn't even been released yet. If you wish to inform people about the project, do it on your website. --Kinu 17:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kinu I am not a part of the mod I am just a fan of Deus Ex; I don't have any say about what they put on their website. It doesn't make sense to say that it is not notable simply because it hasn't been released. There are hundreds of articles with the "This article or section contains information about a computer or video game in production." tag in them which goes to show that even unreleased material with a significant enough following is noteworthy.--Jayson Virissimo 17:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steaphanie hammil

[edit]

Delete Mis-named, un-encylopaedic, nothing links here. Niels Ø 10:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Educational consultant

[edit]

Tagged with {{PROD}} by User:Kinu with the explanation: "Does not seem like an encyclopedic topic; cleanup would not help". However I have the feeling that this is actually an encyclopedic topic and the non-neutrality problem is fixable. Kappa 11:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magicgrafx Entertainment

[edit]

As far as I can make out, this is not an actual video game company, but a name for programmer/game designer Aytaç Aksu, whose main output seems to have been the production of a number of platform games featuring Sonic the Hedgehog characters (most likely in violation of Sega copyright) using the Klik & Play game programming tool. Have also come across Gunner 3, another game from the "Klik community". I very much doubt these are notable enough for Wikipedia. Canley 12:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


what are you talkign about!?
What if it's a violation for SEGA/ copyright/ breaking rules/ code of conduct what ever you wanna call it.
This is WIKI, information about the Business:P/ or the subject which is Magic Entertainment, yes it isn't a company
And why do you want it for deletion, you havn't cleary state your reason.
>x<ino 15:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not stating it clearly enough. No, copyright violation of Sega trademarks is definitely not a reason for deletion. As I say at the end, I was requesting a debate on whether fan-developed games and their programmers are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, I do not think they are, but others may differ. See the policy for software notability at WP:SOFTWARE, which should make it pretty clear. By the way, you haven't exactly clearly stated your own reasoning for keeping the article - I'm quite happy to be convinced otherwise. --Canley 23:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Can't be botherd to read WP:SOFTWARE. But you seem to be right. But some information should be merged with Sonic related article

>x<ino


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

The result of the debate was yeah, I should have deleted this earlier, I just didn't get around to it. DS 23:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procrastinarian

[edit]

Seems to be patent nonsense. andy 12:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Techno-humorist

[edit]

Delete. nn neologism. Google returns only 25 hits for the term, and the linked-to blogger who coined this term is non-notable. Vslashg (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish National Treasure

[edit]

No such award exists; if it's an opinion rather than an award, it's inherently POV Demiurge 12:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala chief minister

[edit]

Useless stub. Aksi great 12:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (Attack page (criteria A6)) --Allen3 talk 13:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Nordin

[edit]

Delete due to slanderous article. Mgdm 12:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doubibou

[edit]

Delete This page started as an advertisment. Editor deleted original speedy delete tags (twice) and then re-edited it into a meaningless stub. Maustrauser 13:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - ulayiti (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Ufology

[edit]

An anon user tagged the page with the wrong template (afd1 instead of afdx - because there was a previous nomination.) Im trying to fix this up - There has already been some discussion on afd which somehow managed to be put at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doubibou which Im moving here -- Astrokey44|talk 15:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (There are many omissions, so much so that it is difficult to argue that it is an accurate history, rather a skewed history that seems to spend a lot of space offering a history that approximates what many Australian UFO researchers know but with some aspects few of us are familar with. The owner of the Wikipedia "Australian Ufology" entry is censoring efforts to correct and edit this skewed and incomplete history so it would be appropriate to highlight the questionable nature of the document and its owner attempt to white out a lot of history and contributions, seemingly in an effort to create a biased and some what flawed history of Australian Ufology.)

      • Delete (Over the years there has been a concerted effort by some UFO researchers to present the real History of Australian Ufology. Independent researchers like Bill Chalker spent years sifting through military files collating Australias UFO History but is continually Deleted from this page. This site is a misrepresentation of the true History of Australian Ufology and should be deleted. User: VUFORS and User: Auforn4u continually disrupt & delete all and every additional information posted to this page. They omit and disregarded the efforts of many Australian ufologists and have kept reverting and posting their own version of Australian Ufology History. User: VUFORS and User: Auforn4u are trying to create a biased and distorted version of Australian UFO History and do so with the blessing of you Wiki voters. If this is what Wiki is all about then one has to wonder if the information on the rest of the Wiki server is verifiable and truly helpful information. AUFORN
  • Comment This might be one for WP:RFC. The talk page on Australian Ufology redirects to the main contributor's talk page. It is a fairly poor quality article though I could see scope for an article of this sort. On the other hand, there are no other examples of localised Ufology. I know very little about the subject but could be tempted with a Merge vote. Also nominator should sign in. MLA 14:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment hmmm, it seems that this AfD has not been set up right. I looked into how to fix it and found that Australian Ufology has an AfD tag on the article but that the tag refers to an AfD that was concluded with No Consensus on 26 Jan 2006. Also the title is capitalised for Ufology which isn't in line with manual of style. MLA 14:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An anonymous user seems to have a personal vendetta against VUFORS and wants to wipe it off Wikipedia. However he doesn't seem to understand the difference between user pages (User talk:Vufors) and Wikipedia articles (Australian Ufology). He also doesn't understand how the AfD listing page works. I have blocked him for 48 hours. No vote about Australian Ufology. JIP | Talk 15:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • JIP, Delete. The anonymous user is me Diane Harrrison and I do not hold a biasted vendette against VUFORS it is actually the other way around and I had no idea you couldn't nominate a talk page for deletion, but he should be deleted as VUFORS continually breaks Wiki policy. These guys VUFORS & AUFO4u continually delete anything and everything I've posted and other AUFORN UFO researchers have posted to this page. I've been continually deleted from the Australian Administration segment along with Bill Chalker & Robert Frola who have been contributing since the 70s & 80s and the excuse VUFORS gives, we are not pre 1981. If this is the case ACERN and many others listed are neither pre 1981. Do you see any reference which states you have to be pre 81 no does it stat this on this on the page no. So ask yourself who really is trying to post a biased side of history. Go back to the history of this page and you find I am correct. VUFORS like you is an additionalists, but VUFORS continually breaks Wiki policy with the blessing of you guys. You have people posting comments about our Australian UFO history that have no idea of our UFO History, yet some of you vote to keep a biased version of it. Diane Harrison.
    • Comment some but not all of that is true. The talk page at Australian Ufology has been redirected to User:VUFORS talk page. At that talk page it appears that User:VUFORS is not prepared to see any discussion of the removal of that redirect. MLA 15:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with Vufors's redirection of the talk page to his own user talk page, but while the redirect is in place, the user talk page can't be nominated for deletion, as user talk pages in general can't. Regardless of Vufors's conduct, the anonymous user acted wrong in inserting his "delete VUFORS" comment to entirely unrelated AfD discussions, even after I warned him. Nominating Australian Ufology for deletion is all OK. Nominating people's user or user talk pages is not. Vufors should be contacted about the redirection, and if he continues to ignore any discussion, there probably should be an RfC discussion. JIP | Talk 16:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Coffee 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaseware

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

The result of the debate was no consensus default to keep. - ulayiti (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stumptown Coffee Roasters

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable business. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. Stumptown (as it's called) is a point of pride for many Portlanders (of which I am one). It's a bit tricky to say why without breaking neutrality. Some factors that contribute to Stumptown's local reputation are the quality of its coffee, the manner in which they purchase and roast their coffee (fair trade, organic, and otherwise), the local celebrity of many of their workers (Stumptown put out a record called "Worker's Comp", featuring musicians that are also employees), and the cultural events (music and art) that they host at their cafes. They are a Portland success story, thriving even as the region faced economic depression. I'm not now, nor ever have I been, affiliated with Stumptown except as a patron. I set up the entry for Stumptown Coffee Roasters as a disambig. of the term Stumptown. If adding the above facts will validate the article, I will gladly update. My impression was that, since it was a stub, it could be expanded upon later. -- Oed 18:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • OK, but here's what I'm looking for: There is a bar near where I live called Miller's that is widely regarded in the Detroit area for having the best hamburgers around. Obviously some people will disagree with this statement, but in general many people believe this to be the case. If you look on [24], Miller's took 1st place. GQ listed Miller's at #8 on their list of "places you have to eat a hamburger before you die". Local newpapers, magazines, etc. have all consistantly ranked Miller's #1 in the area. There is adequate evidence to make a case for notability if someone wanted to write an article about this business and support it's notability. This is the kind of information I'm looking for about Stumptown. Newspaper articles, media, press, etc.--Isotope23 14:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OED: Not only would you want to add those facts (looks like you have), but you'd want to cite the reputable sources they came from. You're an editor compiling other people's published facts and opinions; you're not to insert any facts and opinions of your own. If Stumptown coffee has enough local notability that the local paper has written articles about them, and you can cite such articles, that makes this article a keeper. ikkyu2 (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes sense, I will add citations to specific awards and articles in paper publications. -- Oed 15:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I have lived in Portland for most of my life and Stumptown has become very well-regarded and well-known name around Portland. They are held in extreme high esteem for good business practice, excellent coffee, and supporting the community in a variety of ways. These are exceptionally good folks that are held up as a model as what a successful, locally owned socially conscious business can be. --C0r 10:09, 16 February 2006

Weak Keep When I went to college at Southern Oregon, a buddy of mine from portland had some Stumptown beans shipped down once a month. It was quite a devotion to a paticular coffee. That said, I can't assert any other notability. -AKMask 20:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations/References Added On the advice of various parties, I've created a "References" section to cite a number of publications which support the local importance of Stumptown. If these satisfy Wikipedia criteria, I would suggest removing the deletion tag. -- Oed 19:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete I (disclosure: a Portlander) believe Stumptown Coffee Roasters to be significant and unique enough to qualify being kept, despite its commercial nature. In particular, I think the following reasons describe their signficance:
    • The large number of small, independent coffee roasters in Portland which now exist can be traced back to the success of Stumptown Roasters. Prior to their existence, there were no small, in-cafe roasteries, let alone ones which use small batch, European antique roasters. Now I can name three such cafes within 2 miles of my house, for example.
    • Stumptown Roasters helped raise the bar for both coffee quality (as grown, roasted and served) and, perhaps more importantly, for treatment of workers. Stumptown not only pays top dollar to workers, but they get many benefits (health and dental), numerous vacation days, get long periods off for such activities as touring with bands, etc. Many cafes have (had to) follow suit. In return they demand quality and expertise from their barristas, thus furthering the quality of the coffee drinks made.
    • To say the owner and coffee-selector of Stumptown Coffee Roasters is choosy is an understatement. He gives a huge amount of time to making sure both the coffee beans are good and the people who grow them are treated right. He often pays well above the "Fair Trade" standard price of coffee, and very frequently visits the farms the coffee comes from in South America, Africa, and else where. He has set the highest price ever paid per pound for coffee because he thought the farm's work was worth it and deserved it. It is another example of Stumptown raising the bar in the industry.

I understand the desire to see the proof of these things. I will try to do my best to add sources to what has already been put in this article. I simply believe the impact of Stumptown Roasters is far beyond "quality of coffee" (re: good hamburgers). The impact and following of Stumptown is near cultish at this point (for better or worse; an entirely different discussion there). Now I shall attempt to verify some of this info via sources on the web. Thanks for hearing me out. Jon Lon Sito 07:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ok, i added a whole bunch of references. (sorry the oregonian one had to be to a google cache, but that article has a substantial amount of reference material and is the biggest newspaper in the state.) the article reads pretty crummy right now, but i hope this reflects the impact stumptown has had on portland. Jon Lon Sito 09:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Expo

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable defunct exposition. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunington Sachs

[edit]

I was made aware of this article during the discussion of whether to delete Suzy Sachs. Notability appears questionable. Mild delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Friday. Reason: (made up in school one day "The idea of a Ceiling Gnome was first brought up in 2004. When they were first reported being spotted in a ceiling in a Ohio schools ceiling") --lightdarkness (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling gnomes

[edit]

Original research, unfunny joke, possible hoax Savidan 15:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just like classics gnomes! Why shouldn't this be allowed?!?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 13:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chalupa shot

[edit]

silly (unsigned Afd from Tc61380)

  • At best, merge with Dallas Mavericks article. But my preference would be delete as nn. — RJH 16:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Chalupa, which needs expansion. -Colin Kimbrell
  • Delete. A common basketball-related promo which long precedes the Mavericks (there was a similar one at the major university I attended), thus nn. Daniel Case 16:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Taco Bell, and maybe a tiny, little bit with Chalupa, but TB seems to more appropriate merge.Delete. Not worth mentioning anywhere. Peyna 18:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or weak merge: At best, a passing mention in the respective team's article is best, and not with the company, as it has nothing to do with the corporate entity Taco Bell, but a local franchise in agreement with the Mavericks. This kind of promotion is hardly notable in itself, as many sports teams have one, i.e., I read the Cavaliers were elated in their blowout win last night, but only after they crossed the century mark, so that they could get coupons. Also in this regard, I would not be averse to a passing mention at chalupa, though, with a note as to the general nature of such promotions. Psst... drop the chalupa. --Kinu 19:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC); edited 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kinu. -- Kjkolb 21:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't merge with anything. It's a (one-time) local marketing gimmick and simply not notable. We have some for every stadium here in Phoenix, with Circle K, McDonald's, etc. for the Phoenix Suns, Phoenix Coyotes, Arizona Diamondbacks, Arizona Cardinals, so I'm sure they have one for each team in every stadium of every major city and we shouldn't be writing articles on each one of them. 40 google hits with the top 2 refering to this article and the one that directs to it? I'm not impressed.


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1800Flowers

[edit]

saved from prod as "notable" but is clearly an advertising stub Thatcher131 16:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The above is inaccurate. It is on NASDAQ as "FLWS." As a publicly traded company, you can find the requested info (733.74M USD revenue; 3000 employees). Finally, there has been a lot of non-trivial, non-ad press on the company. --Karnesky 01:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep as misplaced nomination of a harmless redirect. - ulayiti (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon bus

[edit]

Dragon bus is not a term for chinatown bus Tc61380 16:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 12:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMACS

[edit]

Poorly written, questionable notability. Moderately strong delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll rewrite it to a better quality from what I know. It is a certifiable and real-life program; their website is at: http://imacs.org/imacsweb/default.aspx. --LoganK 14:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 16:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain As it stands, not notable enough. How long a grace period should it get? Thatcher131 16:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

I work at IMACS and a student created that page. It is definitely worthy of being there, as IMACS has locations all over the country.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HammondWiki

[edit]

Was tagged as WP:PROD. The tag was removed under the motivation "give it a chance". I tried Google for link to this site and search for name, but found nothing showing that WP:WEB are met. - Liberatore(T) 16:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAMEY

[edit]

Neologism, no evidence of widespread use of acronym. (Posted by User:Friday on behalf of 82.15.28.195 (talk • contribs) who due to being not logged in, cannot create pages and complete the process)

  • Is "Internet Big Five" a well-known name for this particular set of companies? Google sure doesn't seem to think so. If an established name for this group of companies doesn't already exist, it's not up to us to invent one. It looks to me like important acquisitions are already covered in articles on the individual companies. Deciding which 5 companies are the "top five" and inventing a new name for them is original research and we shouldn't be doing that. Duplicating content found elsewhere is undesirable forking and also should not be done. Friday (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Who invents such acronyms? They are all created by one particular writer and then their use is either adopted or dropped. The acronym has already been picked up in other wikipedia articles. I think we should wait to see if adoption occurs, then the question becomes how long should we wait.
  • Keep Shows significant ammount of Google results which are relevant. Also, very useful to remeber the big 5. Jayden


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 09:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial Tea Ceremony

[edit]

Was submitted to WP:PROP, but contributor has placed an explanation on article's talk page. In my view this may constitute a disagreement with the prod template, so submitting for community consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 16:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takami Servers

[edit]

Was submitted to WP:PROP, but prod template was removed (albeit anonymously by one-edit contributor). Therefore submitting for community consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 16:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was scamdelete. Mailer Diablo 04:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scamdoo

[edit]

Zero googles for "scamdoo", and it fails WP:NFT. From the article: "The word was recently popularized at Ave Maria School of Law by students working on a research paper that incorporated a scamdoo (as of then it was not named) because technical language was needed." As such, delete for being a non-notable protologism that's not in common use. Colin Kimbrell 16:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, what are those circles with a line through called? I'll be using 'scamdoo' to describe them I think, although with no google hits, I must agree with the delete. A better place for it would be Urban Dictionary. James Kendall [talk] 17:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As of that matter does the Urban dictionary list it? If not,why on earth would it need an article of its own? J.J.Sagnella 17:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not in Urban Dictionary[27].-Colin Kimbrell 17:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are we even considering deletion? DELETE. J.J.Sagnella 18:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Protologism. I like that word. Where did you come across it?MCP 04:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a place for the promotion of new words or concepts. Kappa 19:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neologism. Personally, I prefer the term "circle with a line through it." --Kinu 19:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and imagine a "circle with a line through it" and the word "Neologism" in the middle.--Isotope23 19:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom., us gov. seems to think those are generally "prohibition" signs, or "circle & diagonal" [28]. I do like it, though. Makemi 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circle, slash, delete per nomination. Barno 20:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a Las Vegas, Nevada native and a graduate of UNLV. I am certain that I have heard the word being used around UNLV's campus to describe exactly what the article says, "a circle with a line through it." I can't say whether it is appropriate as a Wikipedia article. However, if as the article says, it was created in 2005, the use of the word has spread very quickly. Perhaps students at Ave Maria School of Law are claiming to have invented a word that has existed for some time. Or perhaps, the idea needed a word to describe it and people have caught on quickly. Either way, the words approptiatness on Wikipedia aside, the words legitimacy should not be discarded for lack of common use. By the way, if a word such as "Dirty Sanchez" has a place on Wikipedia, why shouldn't Scamdoo?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.68 (talk • contribs)
Dirty Sanchez is a term in common usage, and as such, not a good precedent. It's relatively easy to find examples of it being used in popular culture (such as 555,000 hits on Google [29]).-Colin Kimbrell 23:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a textbook example deletion J.J.Sagnella 22:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 21:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Ricardo

[edit]

Going on a limb... Couldn't find evidence that subject satisfies WP:BIO, but this could be systematic bias combined with ISP problems. Half of these gave me 404 errors, so my standard "happy to see evidence of notability" line applies with a bit more force.
brenneman(t)(c) 11:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 17:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Softlad

[edit]

Barely any content, should be deleted or at best merged into an article on slang. WP:NOT a dictionary of English slang Ryanjunk 17:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PCNX

[edit]

Insignificant webpage with Alexa ranking of 4,616,231. I did not know there were even 4,616,231 sites on the web. Could this possibly be the least popular website on the entire Internet? Uucp 17:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Feel free to merge, AfD isn't the place to decide that. - ulayiti (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of emo groups

[edit]

Delete - Ambiguous use of the term emo, follows no definitive guidelines for classification of this music genre, many definitions exist and are not agreed upon regarding the word "emo"- this article does not specify which definition of emo it is referring to; there are better lists that exist on Wikipedia that are more clear as to their content and better represent the genre Yakwhacker 18:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Chris's post below, I've reconsidered. I'm not sure List of emo bands is the best place for a merge anyway given the layout of that page. Of course any emo list is going to be a constant edit war by the nature of the label. Abstain for now and strongly endorse using categories instead of more arbitrary lists.--Isotope23 14:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pharting

[edit]

Interesting concept, but completely original research / terminology, see [30] OscarTheCattalk 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starkman

[edit]

Probably hoax, can't verify any of the claims here. It is also a dicdef. Peyna 18:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nova in trouble

[edit]

Originally listed on prod, but tag removed by IP; appears to be some kind of old press release, but it definitely doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Peyna 18:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 12:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Employee leasing

[edit]

Delete as another advertisement for this author's website(s). I had originally placed this article in Proposed Deletions, but the author removed the {{prod}} template, so here we are in AfD. This user has received several {{nospam}} warnings on his talk page, most of which he has blanked to make it look as if they never happened. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. W.marsh 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Christian

[edit]

Non-notable term; new word; unsourced; possibly vanity KHM03 19:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can get on board with the redirect.--Isotope23 20:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 20:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me as well. KHM03 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Makemi. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 21:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been bold and created the redirect. If this was "out of process" feel free to revert me. Makemi 22:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 12:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Four

[edit]

Unverified hoax. Non-notable unused term. Delete Ardenn 19:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This weekend the men’s and women’s soccer teams will be heading to Montreal to compete in the Old Four Tournament which includes Queen’s, Western and McGill. While points are not accumulated in these exhibition contests, pride and bragging rights are on the line for the four oldest universities in Canada. Slowmover 16:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we haven't heard of something, doesn't mean it's a hoax. And furthermore, the edits by the creator of this page look like serious edits in general, even if the topics may not seem very "encyclopedic" to most people. Slowmover 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Marudubshinki under CSD:A7 (article on a person, persons, club, or band with no assertion of notability). Stifle 23:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teffagem

[edit]

I can't find any evidence that this band meets the guidelines at WP:MUSIC - no evidence of any releases. CDC (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quezza

[edit]

Delete. Article is nothing more than an ad for the software. LrdChaos 19:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 12:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Inputs

[edit]

Listed at copyright problems, but not a copyvio--posted by copyright holder. Notability also challenged, so listing here. No vote. Chick Bowen 19:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (5 del, 1 smerge, 1 keep). - ulayiti (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warps

[edit]

nn game playing society. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Due to the rewrite and the lack of number of participants, I think we could use some more comments here, thank you. W.marsh 20:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm concerned that it is not encyclopedic, in the sense that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias generally assert notability of their subject in the introduction. I finished the entire article and was left uncertain why the article author felt I, or anyone, might spend time reading about this topic. I could be convinced otherwise with a stronger assertion of notability, but at the moment I am inclined to believe that the subject is inherently unencyclopedic due to its lack of notability. Ikkyu2 22:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight Merge and Redirect to University College Cork or, preferably, a new article with a name like 'University College Cork student groups.' There's no reason to have a separate page for every student group of every University. --Karnesky 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Their forum doesn't have enough traffic to even show up on Alexa Ruby 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a quick proposal for a rewrite in the article discussion page. I have removed some of what I considered to be non-encyclopedic information, and added some factual information that was provided in this discussion. I have absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter, so I'm sure there are technical errors, but hopefully it provides a basis for cleaning and keeping the article if the claims for notability can be verified (e.g. largest gaming convention in the Republic of Ireland). If these claims cannot be properly verified, I will lean towards delete. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 03:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it be acceptable to write a new article, one that would show that the society is of note? Or would it be more adviseable to add UCC societie's as an extension and have WARPS under that? 14:42 February 15 2006 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuicksilverK (talk • contribs)
  • Add'l Comment I have moved my proposed rewrite into the article itself (I guess that means I re-wrote it, huh?). I have also added the {{verify}} template to draw attention to my concern of verifiable sources. It seems as if the group may have a degree of notability, but as I stated above, I would want verifiable sources of these claims added to the article in order to keep it. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 16:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beige (artists)

[edit]

nn record label/artists' collective/whatever. post-data.org has no alexa ranking. '"Joseph Beuckman" beige' brings up 16 Google hits. '"Paul B. Davis beige' brings up 178. '"Paul Davis" beige' brings up 272. '"Tardy Tracks" "The Bitwise Operators"' brings up 8. 'cubehouse "mutant disco"' brings up 45, and there is an amazon.co.uk and an artistdirect mention, but Mutant Disco is a compilation disc. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • thx, trying to make a better entry, they are referenced from a few wikipedia pages but have no entry Rudytardy 23:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • updated entry, "8-bit construction set" brings up 12,600 google hits, beigerecords.com has alexa ranking, "cory arcangel" brings up 140,000 google hits. BEIGE has non-working links from artist_collectives, art_collectives, and cory_arcangel wikipedia pages.Rudytardy 00:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 20:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 12:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-dom

[edit]

There is already an entry on Wiktionary for -dom. CSD A5 appears to be applicable; however Mikkalai is in disagreement with my interpretation. So I will bring to AfD. James084 21:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD-A5 is thoroughly inapplicable. Did you read it at all? A test question for James084: which wikipedia procedure is mentioned in A5? mikka (t) 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 20:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge to Plantronics. - ulayiti (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volume logic

[edit]

Originally {{prod}}ed for advertising, that was switched to an {{advert}} tag. Then THAT was takn off, and although the article has been re-written, it _still_ reads like an advert to me. So, consensus please on this article's notability or lack thereof. Few Google hits to boot. Avi 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 20:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth party

[edit]

I can't find any evidence that this party existed, aside from a now defunct website. The party itself is also dead, but did not get any mentions on Google News for its demise or for any other reason. It gets 76 unique Google results, a lot of them are website directories. They describe it a little, but there is no mention of how many members it has, how long it has existed, what impact it has had or anything else useful about the party, except that it is against equality. -- Kjkolb 20:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was disambiguate .mikka (t) 21:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up

[edit]

This doesn't seem like a very encyclopedic topic to me. It's seems to be basically a dictionary definition of a commonly used phrase, so I say delete disambiguate. Facts&moreFacts 20:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a dictionary definition with non-notable trivia. Delete. Mattley (Chattley) 20:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

FUCK YOU


The result of the debate was redirect to Fuck.SoothingR 21:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you

[edit]

Dictionary definition. Delete per wikipedia is not a dictionary. Facts&moreFacts 21:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sahraeean

[edit]

As it stands this is a vanity CV. However, it claims he is a notable ecconomist. But I can't verify most of it, other than from his own website, which is certainly vanity. -Doc ask? 21:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus.SoothingR 21:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bling Kong

[edit]

Delete - Found virtually nothing on google [36]. I'm assuming that it fails WP:MUSIC. Forbsey 21:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I checked both Google websites (US and UK) and the search pages for the band seem to be monotonous. Fanficgurl 4:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You would say that, Fanficgurl, since you created the article! Forbsey 09:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally nn. The most information on this band is on a Myspace site. Does not satisfy criteria WP:MUSIC in any way I can see. If you find any criteria clearly satisfied for keeping as laid out in WP:MUSIC, let me know and I will change my vote. DrIdiot 23:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't sign into my user name when I edited the Bling Kong article (I know I should have), but I added some news articles in there. One of them is a Spin Magazine article. According to WP:MUSIC, an article about a person(s) in music on Wikipedia has to have been mentioned in a notable media magazine. And Spin is one of them. Fanficgurl 5:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Right now the article is virtually empty. Fill it up with information. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 22:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Adashiel and Marudubshinki, consecutively, per CSD:A7 (article on a person, persons, group, or band with no assertion of notability). Stifle 23:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian transportation sensation

[edit]

Non-notable, probably non-existant group of self-proclaimed wikipedia vandals. My previous Speedy Delete tag was removed, so I am listing this in AfD. Ryanjunk 21:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Chairboy per CSD:A7 (biographical article with no notability asserted). Stifle 01:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott grella

[edit]

stupid Tc61380 21:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strahilo

[edit]

Dicdef-ish. Obli (Talk) 22:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haterade

[edit]

I originally put a prod tag on this, but user:162.111.235.17 raised objection on the talk page, so it's being sent to AfD. It's a non-notable cocktail, is unencyclopedic in content, with little hope of any meaningful context being added Cnwb 22:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 13:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time and methods engineering

[edit]

This was on WP:PROD for five days but as an industrial engineer who has heard of this stuff before, I don't feel that it should be deleted without review. I vote keep, but I'm open to renaming as well. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trick for these topics is coming up with a name that is both descriptive and universally used. Basically, this is a general term that is similar in meaning to some other topics, so it's easy to talk about this without actually calling it "time and methods engineering". But if you were to say to someone in IE, "I'm doing some time and methods engineering", they'd have a good idea of what you're talking about. I can't say exactly where I've heard it before, but here are some examples of where it is used: Maynard is a major player in IE (see MOST), and they offer a course in "Intensified Time Study and Methods Engineering" ([37]). University of Wisconsin and other universities offer courses in "Methods engineering" (IE 470; [38] - pdf). Another course syllabus refers to "Methods-time analysis, or methods engineering" ([39]). It may be better to not have this article and instead have a methods engineering article and a work measurement article, but because the areas are related, and because it's not that big of a difference from what we have now, I don't see any reason to make that switch, especially for an article this short. --Spangineer (háblame) 12:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (5 del, 1 keep). - ulayiti (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North of ok

[edit]

Non-notable band that does not meet WP:MUSIC. Prod tag removed, so it's being sent to AfD Cnwb 22:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The criteria from WP:Music you refer to is "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources". Can you cite the sources which reported on this tour? This tour isn't mentioned in the article. I went back through the history and could only find a passing reference to it. Can you add more information to the article? I think this could help your cause. Cnwb 21:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosley's

[edit]

Appears to be a cafe, certainly doesn't look notable. I tried Proposed deletion, but since the tag was removed by the article creator I'll list it here. Leithp 22:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L.E.M.U.R.

[edit]

Was tagged with a WP:PROD tag, but the article does assert notability of the organization (made the cover of the scientific journal Electric Space Craft" - is that a significant journal? I don't know). No opinion here, throwing it to the wisdom of the AFD community. Stormie 22:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Dobbs

[edit]

Tagged as db-bio but notability is asserted. Alleged sex offender, no other claim to notability. Dodgy ground. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C4sms

[edit]

Advertising, Non notable Chuck 266 23:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. W.marsh 00:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sho (letter)

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asonta Ellison

[edit]

Tagged as db-bio, but notability is asserted. Er, I think. In as much as I can make head or tail of the article, anyway. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Mailer Diablo 01:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OPOV

[edit]

This recently added article is for a relatively obscure and undefined neologism/initialism. While there are some 16K online instances of the term, they refer to "open" or "omniscient point of view", not "obsessive", "One Person, One Vote", et al. The case for retrofitting this article into a dab is, similarly, questionable. Of course: this, in and of itself, might be an OPOV ... no matter which way you skin this cat. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_14&oldid=1234127503"