Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 11

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< February 10 February 12 >

Purge server cache

February 11

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. -Splashtalk 01:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digi.Kaf

edit
  1. NOT an online directory. Subject does not seem noteable, article seems written first-person like an advertisement, and seems only like a plug for the external link. —akghetto talk 07:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delete - non notable, advertisment. Tawker 07:52, 11 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. -Splashtalk 01:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absinthe Films

edit

Tagged as not-notable, I removed the tag and brought it here. Abstaining for now. brenneman{T}{L} 00:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Futureproof

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 Userfied. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   23:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Martinez

edit

Suspected Vanity--Rockero420 00:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's autobiographical. It's not intended to be vanity. I could certainly have added a great deal more detail. The majority of my published work is not self-published, just two of the three books mentioned. But if you're going to delete articles because of self-publication, you'll need to get rid of the articles on Mark Twain and a few other more notable people. Any objections to deletng the Twain article for the same reason?

And, yes, the two links are provided to sites by Michael Martinez. One is the official Michael Martinez Web site. Official Web site links are allowed, according to Wiki policy. The other link is to the site referred to in the article. That is also allowed under Wiki policy.Michael Martinez 04:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy Actually, I should have mentioned that this article was intended to be my user page article. I only noticed after it was created that it didn't end up where I intended it to be. Wikipedia policy does allow for articles to be userfy'd, too. Michael Martinez 04:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete MM is a famous troll from alt.tv.xena days, but that's not enough for an article Ruby 04:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)*Userfy per article's creator. Ruby 05:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ruby. I'm surprised to see you of all people call me an ATV troll.Michael Martinez 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, did I mention the kettle was black? "I don't care what you've done in the past. Do good now, and you are good." -- Xena of Amphipolis in "Warrior...Princess...Tramp" Ruby 05:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Ruby, I was simply referring to my having defended you against the ATV trolls and bullies who attacked you incessantly. I wasn't calling you a troll. But perhaps your memory of that time is somewhat different from my own.Michael Martinez 05:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing I remember alt.tv.xena was called ATX not ATV. Ruby 05:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a cold, I'm sitting typing in the dark. ATX/ATV. They're on the same keyboard. Anyway, I'll appreciate your acknowledging my other mistake and misplacing what was intended as a user profile as a main article and changing your vote to userfy. Otherwise, I assume I'll have to wait out the 5-day discussion, let the article be deleted, and repost again to the user page.Michael Martinez 05:30, 11 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. -Splashtalk 01:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ed sleepover

edit

Delete This page is is WP:OR, at the very least Aaronw 00:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Get to know the parents of your child's friends. Talk frankly with them about safety, limits, and supervision at parties. Know ahead of time if they share your views on underage drinking, smoking, co-ed sleepovers, and other issues." Wiwaxia 06:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments: First, that newspaper article does not actually substantiate much of what this article says. Second, a newspaper column is probably not a reliable source. Third, the term "co-ed" is almost exclusively used in North America, elsewhere a different term is used. Fourth, most of what that newspaper article says is applicable to any sleepover including teens. So, this seems to me to have the wrong title, a lot of unverified content (who has figures for the number of times a single gay man is invited to otherwise all-girl sleepovers?) and reads like original research. The wrong article in the wrong place, in other words. Deleting this does not preclude someone from writing a much better article on the same thing. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   11:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is unverifiable content, you can remove it with the 'edit' button without going through AFD. Also there is a 'move' button for articles which could have better titles. Kappa 11:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yebbut, moving it and blanking it (which is what's required) doesn't do much for the 'pedia. There is not one single fact in there which does not appear to me to be either a statement of opinion rather than documented fact, or a generic comment about sleepovers. I'm tempted just to redirect to sleepover and leave it at that. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   11:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark Hotel

edit

Non-notable, degenerating into trivia Tagishsimon (talk) 00:21, 11 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. -Splashtalk 01:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Star

edit

Non-notable, probably made up. Not entry on IMDB and no hits for this Google search TigerShark 00:36, 11 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 Userfy to User:Nickbeaver Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   23:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Beaver

edit

Non-notable, possibly vanity TigerShark 00:40, 11 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. The bulk of the redirecters are refuted pretty thoroughly by Kjkolb, Car salesman's is not a useful comment at all, and redirecting it to city...well...I guess maybe, but who's going to type this in the search box? -Splashtalk 01:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outskirts (city)

edit

I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but I don't think this will ever be more than a dictdef - and one that's already in Wiktionary. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a good try, though. -- Kjkolb 14:31, 11 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 speedied, no context, no nothing. If someone writes a real article we can discuss that. Haukur 01:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New West Shuttles, Inc.

edit

Delete. Created as an advert, no content without the advertising material Fightindaman 01:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joi Gordon

edit

Whilst her company, Dress for Success Worldwide, certainly sounds noteworthy, this bio seems non-notable. Cnwb 01:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article by the magazine Hewitt.[3] Epoch Times' article.[4] One more article from Amarillo Globe-News out of Texas. [5] Do you need more? Ok, here's one from CBS [6] An exact Google search returns 314 hits. Of the first 20 I looked at, almost all of them were relevent. ---J.Smith 05:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense/hoax/whatever - it violates the whole CSD kitchen sink. FCYTravis 08:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruggle

edit

Delete. No google hits relating to the color Bruggle. Appears completely made up. Fightindaman 01:22, 11 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. -Splashtalk 01:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abount

edit

Made up nonsense, by same author as Bruggle Camillus (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • um.........

I didn't write bruggle. Abount is actually used by people. All the time. I didn't even coin this term to start with. I learned through other people who have used it long before me.Ricecrispx (talk)

Do people outside Indiana even know this term? Royboycrashfan 01:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my mistake - while you contibuted to Bruggle by removing the prod tag without expalanation, it appears to be another editor who created Bruggle. Please don't impersonate me or any other editor, by redirecting to MY talk page in your signature. Camillus (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • um.........

i did nothing to bruggle but defend it cause i agree with what it is saying and the talk thing was my fault--Ricecrispx 01:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what age group are you?--Ricecrispx 02:42, 11 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. -Splashtalk 01:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansionist Party

edit

A fringe party of one person. Lacks notabilty. —ERcheck @ 02:09, 11 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 - the merge+redir has stood since it was done, and I agree with that reading of the debate. -Splashtalk 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chevron (Stargate)

edit

This is unneeded detail on what's already covered in the Stargate (device) article. It adds an unneeded page to a project that is trying to minimize fan-fuelled articles.  Alfakim --  talk  02:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Stargate (device). Royboycrashfan 02:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a good reason to keep the one article and delete the other, except that the one up for AfD wasn't written by the nominator and his pals. That's not an appropriate reason for deletion. Bear in mind that this isn't a paper encyclopedia, and if you're going to make TV-related cruft fair game, people are going to write about it. Ikkyu2 02:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Stargate is the centre of the whole universe. It's chevrons are already discussed in its article, and the chevron article is only linked from its article.--

 Alfakim --  talk  12:43, 11 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 04:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum onion

edit

Tagged as a speedy deletion, but doesn't quite fir any existing criterion. Brought here for more open examination. Abstain for now. brenneman{T}{L} 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" Delete I'm the original submitter. Please delete it. BTW, an Interent search for the term has references to a music studio and their products, and to recent U-Mainz technique for the formulation of semiconductor crystals for nanotechnology, neither of which are concerned with abstract modeling classes. [[[User:Neutronmd|neutron]] 15:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)]

In that case, I change my vote to Speedy delete G7- author requests deletion. --Rory096 19:23, 11 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 04:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SwitchDiscs.com

edit

Reads like an advertisement-- xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:57, 11 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 04:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to School in your 40's

edit

Not encyopedic Geni 03:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sounds like some kind of advertisement that someone tried to make NPOV (the comment about it not being copied enforces this idea- it means it probably IS copied, though possibly edited). Rory096 03:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the original author is pretty insistant it is not copied.Geni 04:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That just makes me think that it IS copied. Rory096 06:56, 11 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 07:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Hazard

edit

Hmmm...let's see. It's an unreferenced article that's been on cleanup since Sept.2005 without additions. It tells us nothing other than that the subject is as old as the author can comprehend (ie: about 70 years) and that other unrelated elements of the subject may have provided source material for a movie. Delete unless this provokes an interesting and comprehensive rewrite. Eddie.willers 03:10, 11 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 07:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Druid's Foot

edit

Removed speedy tag, brough here. Does not claim to satisfy guidelines for inclusion of websites.
brenneman{T}{L} 03:13, 11 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 07:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Roberts (QVC presenter)

edit

Subject is nonnotable. Powers 03:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm sure I don't have to mention this, but a simple Google search for "Julia Roberts" won't exactly be useful in establishing notability... Powers 04:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If by 15 minutes you mean 13 years, then yes :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Africanist Manchester Conference

edit

Delete - unverifiable article, and completely free of context and information --Xorkl000 03:38, 11 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 07:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Seowon Hwang

edit

An email to the Help Desk mailing list claims that this article is a hoax. There are discussions at http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=83963 and http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1330547 indicating that the person who made up Lauren Seowon Hwang is doing the same thing there. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:52, 11 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 01:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Sweden

edit

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. And what is a .svg format? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if voted to keep, image names used in both this article and Ireland need to be changed to something meaningful and predictable. Pavel Vozenilek 06:40, 11 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. -Splashtalk 22:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth revival

edit
  • while its true that it generates a lot of hits on google - the web pages returned don't really talk about the same thing, doesn't seem to be consensus out there what Youth Revival is --Xorkl000 03:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 03:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Fortune

edit

Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP -- Perfecto 04:13, 11 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. Bratschetalk 04:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurushinism

edit

A non-notable "way of life" which promotes "centraly planned, rational, orderly society where everyone work for the common good." oh, and by the way, all embryos will be brought to term in protein-filled jars. Two, count 'em, two google hits -- and one doesn't work. The only reference I can find for the author's name is third place in a science fair at a high school which, by amazing coincidence, I walked by every day last year. Delete as crackpot, although high entertainment value suggests possible BJAODN. bikeable (talk) 04:17, 11 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. Angr/talk 09:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Societal attitudes towards homosexuality

edit

"Delete for Propaganda/Advocacy" Lou franklin 04:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" article should be removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT has a list of "what Wikipedia is not". The page says that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and asks that we leave "opinions on current affairs" out of Wikipedia. It says that Wikipedia articles should not be "propaganda or advocacy". Wikipedia says that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view. This article is clearly in violation of all of those standards.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a place for facts - not editorials. Does this statement belong in an encyclopedia: "In most developed countries, same-sex relationships are accepted"? Is that a fact that belongs in an encyclopedia or is that propaganda/advocacy?

How about this statement: "In some cultures influenced by anti-gay religious dogma, homosexuality is still considered unnatural". Is the reason that some cultures consider homosexuality unnatural really because they are "influenced by anti-gay religious dogma"? Is that fact or an opinion?

How about this "fact": "Violence against homosexuals remains common". Since no definition of "common" was given, is that a factual statement or is it spin?

The article references the "LGBT civil rights movement". But "civil rights" are personal rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, e.g., freedom of speech, press. Are homosexual rights spelled out in the Constitution? Then can there really be a "LGBT civil rights movement"? Or was that term crafted to associate gay rights with the rights of racial minorities?

Consider this statement: "Studies by Dr. Carole Jenny, Dr. A.W. Richard Sipe, and others have not found evidence that homosexuals are more likely to molest childen than heterosexuals." I am unclear of how that relates to the topic of "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" in the first place. Is the purpose of this article to discuss what the "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" ARE, or to discuss what they SHOULD BE? In any case, the link that the author provided says that "no large-scale national research has been done" and admits that the information is from "small studies".

We can debate whether "homosexuals are more likely to molest childen than heterosexuals" until the cows come home. Links can be found that make the case for either side of that argument, so it is fertile territory for revert wars. The statement is not from a neutral point of view and is off-topic anyway.

The article is fundamentally biased from start to finish and should be removed.

Lou franklin 04:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Article is generally sympathetic to modern liberal homosexual rights agenda, but is encyclopedic and reasonably NPOV already. The nomination, however, is blatantly abusively POV. This is not what AFD is for. POV balance here would be a fair and reasonable section in the article presenting the differing opinion. Deleting it is homophobia running rampant. Georgewilliamherbert 09:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a good start for a useful and significant topic. It could use some editing per the nominator, but we don't delete just because an article needs to be cleaned up. Logophile 11:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Per Georgewilliamherbert. Chairman S. 11:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What you have here is a small yet vocal militant group using Wikipedia to get their agenda out.

Wikipedia was a cool idea, but people won't continue to use it once they discover overtly biased articles like this one. (Did you know that "many religious establishments" accord homosexuals "special status as possessing enhanced spiritual abilities"?)

The public is growing more skeptical already. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm

The process of correcting articles is fundamentally flawed because not only don't many "editors" attempt to be impartial and objective, but the very reason they are here is to push their agenda. Somebody made the comment that "the proper response to an article with biased content is to rewrite it, not to delete the article". Yet when I made corrections they were simply overridden. The net effect is that the article cannot be corrected and it cannot be removed.

No encyclopedia in the country would print the propaganda contained in this article. Ultimately, the public will stop using Wikipedia because the authors are allowed to disregard facts and promote their agendas. And, no, deleting this article would not be "homophobia running rampant"; it would be fairness running rampant.

Lou franklin 12:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are nominating it for deletion because your version keeps getting edited? That merely reinforces my impression that this was a bad faith nomination from the gitgo. Ruby 13:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's my experience that small yet vocal militant groups tend to show up on AfD when their articles get tagged. So far though, all we've got is you. While I can understand your perspective, I'm unconvinced. Systemic bias is argued both ways with some regularity, and frankly, I doubt this article is going to be the death of Wikipedia.
Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, many cultures do consider individuals with uncommon gender characteristics to have exceptional spiritual powers and abilities. The article may need work, as most do, but throwing it in the dustbin is not the way to proceed. Haiduc 12:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV problems/statements needing citations WERE addressed by editing the article, but the edits were overwritten repeatedly. Those who use Wikipedia to promote their own agenda are making very sure that correcting the article by means of editing it will not work. Lou franklin 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lou, your most recent edit was to mutilate a paragraph which cited a peer reviewed scientific study which showed that homosexuals are less likely to molest children, and before it add a statement that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, and a link to a strongly POV opinion / political action site with an unscientific, un-peer-reviewed opinion web page arguing the latter.
[history]
This is evidence of bad faith and POV editing on your part, not evidence of bad faith reversions on others part. Georgewilliamherbert 20:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link to your so-called "peer reviewed scientific study" was actually a USA Today article that openly admits that "no large-scale national research has been done" and describes the studies you cited as "small". That USA Today article also mentions a study that concluded "that gay men are three times more likely than heterosexuals to have sex with minors". That was mentioned in the very same article, yet that study mysteriously never made it to the text of the Wikipedia article. I am at a loss to understand how my link was "evidence of bad faith and POV editing" while yours was not.
Dr. Frederick Berlin, the researcher that you mentioned in the Wikipedia article, said in the very article that you linked to that "no scientifically conclusive research exists that would answer questions about pedophiles' sexual orientation". That information comes directly from the link posted, but somehow was never mentioned in the text of the Wikipedia article.
The information included in the Wikipedia article has been carefully selected. Parts that further your agenda are included; Parts that do not are excluded because they are "bad faith reversions".
Whether "homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals" is moot since it doesn't relate to the topic, and there are no conclusive studies anyway. I can modify the article and site literally hundreds of links that take one position. Then you can site a hundred links with the opposing opinion. Your sites will be no more valid than mine. But is that really necessary? Since it has absolutely no bearing on the topic of "societal attitudes towards homosexuality" in the first place, it shouldn't be a matter of debate. It should be removed.
No encyclopedia in the country would print that article. It should be removed. Lou franklin 23:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to both your opinions about the topic in question and about the article. However, your opinions clearly differ from consensus agreement about what fair neutral POV is, and whether this article has it or not. This is not the article's problem. The article clearly has enough support to defeat this AFD nomination. Georgewilliamherbert 23:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. On the contrary. There is solid research that completely blows this nonsense out of the water and burns the ashes. An objective article can be written here; saying there's no legitimate information is simply nonsense. --DanielCD 05:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are a bright person. You realize that declaring which mental health organizations are "mainstream" involves a good deal of speculation. You know that saying "all mainstream Western health and mental health professional organizations have concluded this therapy is ineffective" is not a true statement. Our opinions about "what fair neutral POV is" do NOT differ. If they did then you would be able to defend those statements as factual. What differs is that I believe that a "fair neutral POV" is important. Lou franklin 01:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did "try editing the article". My changes were overwritten. I changed them back, and they were overwritten again. Editing the article doesn't work when you have extremists who are hellbent on getting their message out. They just keep reverting it back.
I did "discuss any changes on the talk page". I was told that I was wasting space and wasting my time. Lou franklin 15:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...then those counterpoints should be presented, as opposed to deleting the article. Since you know what they are, why not contribute them? Cleduc 15:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The main reason the Joe Franklin's edits kept getting reverted was that, instead of simply posting counterpoints, he deleted what was there and replaced it with his own point. This did nothing to make the article more NPOV, it just shifted the POV to the other side. --Chesaguy 16:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect.
Somebody posted an incorrect definition of homosexuality and I removed it. I provided the link to the dictionary definition on the discussion page. There's nothing wrong with that. Redefining words to your liking may help you to sell your agenda, but it isn't right and it certainly isn't encyclopedic.
The information that I added to the article was correct, and it was removed several times.
I also removed this text: "the association of child sexual abuse and pedophilia with homosexuality is considered by many to be a form of homophobia and prejudice, and has been studied as a form of moral panic based on a neurotic repressed discourse of child sexuality". Exactly what type of counterpoint could one give to such biased drivel? You might as well surround that sentence with the words "warning: this is propaganda". It shouldn't have had to be removed because it shouldn't have been there in the first place.
This text was also removed: "damage from natural disasters in the modern United States is not correlated well with homosexual population, but it does correlate with Protestantism". There is no way to correct that by "posting counterpoints". It is pure hogwash. The article is rubbish and is filled with disinformation from start to finish. It is beyond repair and should be removed. Lou franklin 02:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is a fairly accurate description of the events. The definition of homosexuality was not incorrect simply because it discussed adult orientation rather than restricting the definition to the gender of sexual partners. To claim that male pedophiles who molest boys are homosexual is misleading whether or not it is technically true that their actions are homogenital in nature. The information you added was not correct. It was a grossly misleading statement using, as its only source, a site that based its conclusions on disingenuous distortions of statistics. Rather than add that some (your source) disagree with the distinction between same-gender molestation and adult sexual relations, you deleted everything about the distinction and simply added "Homosexuals are, per capita, more likely to be child molesters" or something very much to that effect. The question to ask is, "Does being sexually and romantically attracted to adults of one's own gender make one more likely to molest children." The logic you present works backwards from same-gender molestation to paint adult sexuality with the same brush saying, in effect, that there is no difference between an adult male being attracted to another adult male and an adult male being attracted to a male child. Would you equate an adult male being attracted to an adult female to an adult male being attracted to a female child since the gender is the same?
Using the word "homosexuality" to describe adult sexuality as opposed to same-gender child molestation is not redefining the word.
As for the whole article being rubbish and in need of removal, it seems the consensus disagrees with you. --Chesaguy 03:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article defined "homosexuals" as "those attracted to same-sex adults". But take a look at the actual definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homosexual . Do you see the word "adults"?
We can debate many things, but we cannot debate the meaning of words. I fail to see how correcting phony word definitions does "nothing to make the article more NPOV" or "just shifts the POV to the other side". The word means what it means.
"As for the whole article being rubbish and in need of removal, it seems the consensus disagrees with you."
Those are two unrelated statements. Both are true. The article is rubbish, and the consensus disagrees with me.
But let's talk about this "consensus". In looking at the user pages of the people who voted to keep the article, I see things like "This user is interested in LGBT issues" (on several user pages), "LGBT Wikipedians", "This user supports equal rights for queer people" (multiple times), "I am... Gay... A recovered Catholic... A liberal democrat", "This user identifies as gay", "This user is a sheep herder on Brokeback Mountain".
Is this "consensus" solely concerned with the accuracy of Wikipedia, or might they have another agenda? Lou franklin 08:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, consensus members are heterosexual, married for over 14 years, and disgusted and repulsed by the implication that only gays or lesbians would be interested in neutral points of view in GLBT Wikipedia articles. That was a despicable accusation to make, Mr Franklin, in addition to being incorrect. You should be ashamed of yourself. Not to mention, it's at least a borderline personal attack, which will get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert 09:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only one I see making personal attacks here is you. Most of the people who voted to keep the article are gay. It's not a "despicable accusation", it's a fact. They list it right on their user pages.
You tell me then, why would people who are so "interested in neutral points of view" be offended by using the dictionary definition of "homosexual" rather than being allowed to twist the definition to suit their cause?
I am one of very few people here "interested in neutral points of view". That is the entire issue. Lou franklin 13:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"The information in the article does appear to indicate societal support of homosexuality, but this simply reflects reality."
Really? Let me offer some "well-referenced evidence to the contrary".
The Wikipedia article says that "38% of the general public think that 'homosexual behavior' is wrong". But take a look at the information in the link cited. The percent of the general public who agree that homosexual behavior is morally wrong is broken down this way:
Completely Agree: 38%
Somewhat Agree: 13%
Somewhat Disagree: 16%
Completely Disagree: 26%
So it isn't accurate to say that "38% of the general public think that 'homosexual behavior' is wrong". The correct percentage is 51% (38% + 13%).
Don't you find it just a little dishonest to report it as 38%?
"The nom" is indifferent to homosexuality, it is the lying that he doesn't support. Lou franklin 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But take a hard look at it to be sure no funny-business is going on. This stuff needs to be NPOV, and can't read like an apology piece. If it can't be kept neutral, then some mediation will be called for. --DanielCD 05:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lou franklin, there's obviously some legitimacy to your concern, but this isn't the way to address it. You can't just delete aspects of the world you don't like, you have to deal with them. However, regarding the factual errors, they do need to be addressed, but again, not in this manner.

Also: this article was started in 2003. WTF were you thinking? If it truly merited deletion, don't you think someone would have caught it before now? --DanielCD 05:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Fix any problem but don't delete it FloNight 05:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Lou franklin, I recognize your concerns, but I agree with other editors -- you can't simply remove statements that you dislike when they are supported by empirical evidence. Furthermore, it seems that you nominated this article for deletion simply out of frustration that your edits were not accepted -- if it doesn't agree with your viewpoint, it must be "spin" and doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. This is vindictive, and does not contribute to a harmonious, constructive community. Please recognize that other viewpoints exist, and other people's opinions are just as valid as yours. I truly hope that a consensus can be reached with the article. I strongly disagree with your apparent views on homosexuality, but I do think that those views are, for better or for worse, a part of societal attitudes toward homosexuality and should be represented in the article alongside other views. Hbackman 05:40, 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 22:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pok gai

edit

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If Wiktionary wants it, transwiki there, but whatever is done with it, delete from here. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:42, 11 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. —Cleared as filed. 15:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apodization

edit

'delete dicdef already on wikitionary. Melaen 12:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Apodization is a technique used in optics. It can be used to alter the effects of diffraction. Texts on Fourier optics often discuss this at length. A good article in Wikipedia which describes aspects of apodization as it relates to Fourier optics and diffraction would belong in an encyclopedia not a dictionary.[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:53, 11 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, as nothing here was merged to the redirect article, and then redirect to List of school pranks. —Cleared as filed. 15:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead arm

edit

How widespread and notable is this schoolyard pastime? Difficult to Google search, but it appears to be a term related to baseball. Punkmorten 12:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:53, 11 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 12:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey and the Big Break (Part I) Joey and the Big Break (Part II)

edit

delete un-notable episodes. Melaen 12:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and in view of the fact that the articles are essentially without content. Then again, if we began deleting episodes of "Joey" simply for their non-notability and absence of content, we might delete the whole show. Joe 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:53, 11 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. Those saying create and merge would be more useful if they were to do so. There is no mandate from AfD to create an article without going and doing so. -Splashtalk 22:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vmstv

edit

I would have considered merging this into its home article, if we had a Valley Middle School article, but we don't, and I have no idea if this refers to any other school that we might have an article on. As it is, the article fails to establish notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:57, 11 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 07:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poison fingers syndrome

edit

Neologism; zero google hits. Delete. bikeable (talk) 05:01, 11 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. Although this is below two-thirds to delete, Hoary gives a comprehensive rebuttal to the Google News stuff on which the bulk of the keepers rely. I don't find much meaning in a "keep because don't delete" comment. -Splashtalk 23:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turn on

edit

Advertisement (for a brand of soda pop).

Although in view of the existence of Turn-On (a legitimate and irrelevant article), etc., and the likelihood that an article similar to this snake-oil ad (or yet another dicdef for the colloquial phrase) will be re-created, a redirect and page lock might be a better solution. (See the arguments on the earlier AfD page.) -- Hoary 05:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Google News results, all related. It's also been banned in France and Denmark, so they must care about it if they bother to ban it. Rory096 07:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a tiny news item. The (very short) CBS article says that the stuff is banned in France and Denmark because (unspecified) ingredients are banned; this doesn't imply to me that the relevant authorities in those countries have even heard of this particular soda pop, let alone that they care about it. -- Hoary 14:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an aphrodisiac drink, not the term people use to mean sexual arousal. Rory096 19:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete good work by Rory but still not a keeper: nn promotional. AndyJones 15:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I can't see any reason to delete. Stifle 23:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per nom. Arbustoo 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let's look again at those six news reports. That in the Boston Herald has a certain small amount of content; within it: "The beverage, which contains vitamins B-12 and B-6, has been banned in France and Denmark because 'all soft drinks containing vitamins are forbidden,' said [the company president]." The mathaba.net story is pretty vacuous and anyway comes from local6.com, so we're really down to five "news reports" -- though "report" is a stretch for any of them aside from that in the Herald. The Herald does tell us that the "key ingredient" is the alarmingly named "schizandra". Within WP, schizandra redirects to schisandra, which tells us that in traditional Chinese medicine it's used for various purposes -- none of them aphrodisiac. The rewritten article on Turn on is much less obviously awful than the one on which I slapped an AfD template, but it still tells us that Turn on is a cherry flavored soda that acts as an aphrodisiac when consumed. NB "acts as", not, say, "is claimed by those marketing it, if by nobody else, to act as". And so on and so on, and then: It is currently only sold via Turn On Beverages, Inc's website, but it will soon be available in stores nationwide. The former half looks a bit like a commercial come-on, the latter raises the question of which nation is discussed, and it seems to me to violate WP:NOT's rule that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Is the start of conventional retailing in any nation of soda pop that's claimed by its purveyor to be aphrodisiac a notable event? I say no it isn't. Meanwhile, WP seems to be notably and alarmingly willing to propagate commercial puffery. This looks less like an encyclopedia article, more like the spam emails that make it past my filters. It still deserves deletion. -- Hoary 06:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'll also nobble the new tite, and create a redirect from that to Ineffability. -Splashtalk 23:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ineffablism

edit

Author removed my (unreferenced) tag so I think it should go to AfD Ruby 05:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC) It was my first entry. Sorry, it was a accident. I will not remove what you write anymore.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drpaluga (talk • contribs) .[reply]

No, that's not what I mean. I need a third-party source for the information in this article, not a link to another WP article. Ruby 07:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

**Now you've got a copyright violation issue. Ruby 07:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC) A little too hasty. Ruby 07:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more precise? What is the issue specifically? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpaluga (talk • contribs)
  • Merge and redirect to Ineffability, which is the more common name for the genuine (though widely disparaged) philosophical concept. (It's spelled "ineffabilism" in any case.) Replace current external link with sources like [8] or maybe [9]. Also, [10]. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 07:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While the term "ineffabilism" may be found to have been used in a number of papers, its usage is simply from taking "ineffable" and using the suffix "-ism". (Which, in my opinion, doesn't merit its own article, nor inclusion in ineffable). (See comment below). However, the term in this case, "ineffablism" (sic), is specifically taken from the article creator's bio (possibly self-submitted) on an independent filmmmakers site. In view of the vote stuffing (7 votes, see all "unsigned" above) by the article's creator, seems like an attempt to get a Wiki reference to his personal philosophy. Note that all versions until the last one on 07:30, 11 Feb 2006 (UTC) indicated that is was a philosophy developed by the author, and in fact is is newly created (2006) (information in many of the first versions of the article). Thus, it doesn't merit a merge, which would support this neologism/"neo-philosophy". —ERcheck @ 12:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The claim that the term is new and was invented by the author of the article is the ONLY thing bogus about this article. It is NOT new, nor is this a new definition for the word. Adding the suffix "=ism" is the most common way to form names for philosophical schools of thought; see foundationalism, reliabilism, internalism, etc etc etc. A significant amount of time has been spent criticizing the doctrine of ineffability as it has been presented in this article. Just because the author of the article was only right by coincidence and has not conducted himself well in this AfD isn't sufficient justification for deleting useful information on a real philosophical term. Believe me, before I researched this matter I fully intended to vote "strong delete." - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 13:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Ineffability as per AdelaMa.Capitalistroadster 08:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have trouble visualizing the number of mistakes someone would have to make to search for this term. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Adrian. The author also seems to have spammed this AfD. -- Mithent 14:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per Adrian. I cannot find this word (even spelled differently) anywhere. Logophile 14:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge /Redirect to (Divine) Ineffability synonym for transcategorial. Improper usage perhaps, but I've heard it used. WeniWidiWiki 01:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AdelaMa made some great enlightening points on this subject but the core of my explanation and rationalization for this ineffable perspective (Ineffablism), using the ideas of “context” and “relativity”, is singularly mine and original and is worth of being kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Drpaluga (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I would encourage AdelaMae to insert the results of her research into another article, though. AndyJones 15:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although it appears that this entry will be deleted, I wish to thank all those for their kind, but generally rejecting, feedback. This idea may have lost the battle to be found on Wikipedia, but the war to uncover Universal Truth never ends and the revelation of this concept, Ineffablism, charges towards higher religious and philosophical enlightenment. Please consider keeping it or modifying the entry so that this important theological knowledge can be accessed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpaluga (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Without evidence that the term is in common enough use, the term should not be in Wikipedia. Steve Casburn 04:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Though controversial I believe this article merits further discussion and time for others to view it and add their comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmayer76 (talk • contribs)
    • I'm sorry, but I do not see any controversy. This is a philosophy developed in 2006. It is not yet established knowledge so it does not yet belong in an Encylopedia. I do not see any Wikipedians supporting the article, above, except (i) the creator who is also apparently (judging by his user name) its subject and (ii) AdelaMae, who can put the record straight once the article has been redirected. Note to closing admin: User:Drpaluga has subsequently created Ineffabilism.
  • Agreed, and I just want to comment that I will not be terribly crushed if this article is deleted; it seems to me that it would be a useful spelling-error redirect (I had to double-check to make sure that this was actually a misspelling), but the relevant information belongs on Ineffability and deleting Ineffablism would, if nothing else, highlight the fact that Wikipedia does not publish original research and insisting that your article is original research is not a good way to convince people it should stay. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 11:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of interest that the article's creator has updated his website to "correct" the misspelling. On his site, he still claims to have created the philosophy, though he has linked to pre-2006 articles from others on the concept of ineffability. —ERcheck @ 05:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swapedo.com

edit

Page is an advertisement for a website that is relatively new and has a low Alexa rating. The text is completely copied from the website, even though it is labelled with the GNU Free Documentation License. FlyingPenguins 06:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Globix

edit

Alexa rank 288,463, nn company Ruby 06:39, 11 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midst and Dadaji

edit
  • A film in pre-production could mean it's just an idea being hashed out in Hollywood power lunches. Ruby 06:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Comment Nominator Ruby withdraws her nomination of Midst because another article was added without consulting her, and the nominator has recently sustained two withering criticisms on her talk page for 1) Not restoring her nomination for Kushiel's Scion when it was removed by a third party without consulting her, and 2) Not making her vote for James Watkins reflect both articles when Shelagh Watkins was added later without consulting her. 14:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm really sorry Endomion for adding Dadaji - I'll be better next time. Now before an admin sees this and closes this, I'm taking over the nom...
Midst and Dadaji

Two unverifiable films still in pre-production. Wikipedia is not the place to announce upcoming film projects. I have to ask you to come back when it's already in the news. --Perfecto 04:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klownacide Records

edit

No ranking on Alexa, which is astonishing for a label on the come up exposing the circus act in the rap game Ruby 06:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zillow

edit

The submitter writes, "This company was launched this week so not much info on it yet although it's been on the news. Hopefully as time goes by more info can be added." I hereby ask the community. Do we let it sit and wait?-- Perfecto 06:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Let's recreate this one after it gets some business going Ruby 07:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the article so obviously I have a vested interest. There are many stubs created which allow for growth. Why not this one? This isn't some kind of hole in the wall business. News of the site has already expanded rapidly and the launch of it was among the most anticipated in both the .com industry and in real estate. There are over 218,000 google hits as well 112 news articles on google alone. I'm sure there will be plenty of info to form the basis of a good article (i.e. sections on how it revolutionized the real estate industry, controveries etc.) --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 07:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've taken the liberty of expanding the stub with new sections. Perhaps I shouldn't have used such a detailed edit summary in the beginning? But I still don't understand the main argument for this AfD. Letting a stub "sit and wait" has never been a true basis of AfD, lest it was not notable. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 18:17, 11 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. Ianblair23 (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ezyretail

edit

Seems NN. Few Google hits that aren't straight copies of this article. Jemiller226 06:58, 11 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 07:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh punk

edit

Indiscriminate list of bands Ruby 07:10, 11 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. JIP | Talk 08:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H2yl

edit

Gamer guild vanity, unwikified, no sources sited, delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:30, Feb. 11, 2006

"If they talk about their rival team beating them, then how is it vanity. And even look it up. All this information is correct"

AlphaZealot 07:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Speaking as a Staff Writer for MLG, the vast majority, if not all, of the information contained within is correct. There are some problems in relation to the time frame this was created. For example, the currect largest tournament is FC3, at over 180 people showing up for singles (although misrepresented in Nintendo Power as having over 200). However, that is information that is bound to change with time, and not grounds for the deletion of an entire entry. This is the first-hand history of one of the best Smash crews in the country, all the tournament placements are verifiable at www.smashboards.com or you can email someone from MLG at their www.mlgpro.com to recieve rankings for their own tournaments. I find it offensive to the Smash community to suggest this page be deleted, and no, I am not from H2YL.[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vail House

edit

It's an article about a student co-op house. Do we really want articles on every dorm and co-op house of every university in the world? "Has an oak tree in its front yard." "someone caulked an egg into the frame" "there was bacchanalian partying" - Uh, yeah, so? Was nominated for WP:PROD but tag was removed. FCYTravis 07:51, 11 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 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Seventh Fleet

edit

"Fanchise" - meaning, it's fanfic. At best, merge with Star Trek, fan made productions. PROD tag contested. FCYTravis 08:14, 11 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. Bratschetalk 03:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob and Roberta Smith

edit

PROD'ed and contested. Artist with potential weak claim to notability but 241 Googles feels low. Someone with more knowledge of British art can chime in? Vote is weak delete. FCYTravis 08:27, 11 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 and RENAME. JIP | Talk 08:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buying property in Turkey

edit

Another prod-contested article. A lot of unsourced speculation, unencyclopedic title, doesn't seem to have a comparable article for any other country. FCYTravis 08:39, 11 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. Bratschetalk 03:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Geiger counters and other radiation detectors

edit

This is a how-to article, something Wikipedia is not. PROD tag contested. FCYTravis 08:42, 11 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 band article with no assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 23:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeless cause

edit

Non-notable band. Fine young men I'm sure but Wikipedia has rules about band listings. Was db-band'd but tag removed without comment. And WP:CIVIL my fellow editors whatever the temptation. Weregerbil 09:34, 11 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. Bratschetalk 03:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dilemma

edit

Unmade short with no sources. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:25, 11 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. Bratschetalk 03:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neocolours

edit

Moved from speedies. This was deleted in January 2005 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neocolours

The text at that time was 

http://www.neocolours.co.uk

A very fun website where you can see all the pet colours Neopets (http://www.neopets.com) have ever made. It also has a fun forum (http://www.neocolours.co.uk/forum)

The board has topped over 2,000 members, with some of the best including...well, check the memberlist.

In short, a great place to discuss Neopets, their new colours, and everything. ''

Clealy what we have now is substantially more than the old one, so speedy is not appropriate Tim | meep in my general direction 10:52, 11 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. Bratschetalk 03:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Moser-Sachs

edit

Page appears to be a hoax. For one thing, google only returns wikipedia as a result when you search. Also, he could not have received a baronetcy in 1966 as no Baronetcies were created after 1964 with the exception of the Thatcher baronets New Progressive 10:54, 11 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. Bratschetalk 03:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Eng Kiat

edit

Nn-bio, another article created by User:Cortt. He's just representing the school in national competitions. Terence Ong 11:05, 11 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. Bratschetalk 03:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd II None

edit

Tagged as speedy, but article notes they have released two albums and thus may pass the guidelines for inclusion for musicians. Abstaining. brenneman{T}{L} 11:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Traditional counties of England and Wales by highest point

edit

This is part Owain campaign to create the Traditional Counties. He seem to be campaigning on behalf of the likes of County Watch and Association of British Counties, his objectives are to give his pervert ideas the same coverage in Wikipedia as the actual counties of the UK IanDavies 11:48, 11 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. Bratschetalk 03:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smib

edit

Wikipedia is not UrbanDictionary. Punkmorten 11:55, 11 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. Bratschetalk 04:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Face Value by Jonathan West

edit

Ad about a real, non-notable book. 6 google hits on the book with "Face Value"+"Jonathan West", no amazon.com sales rank - Bobet 11:58, 11 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. Bratschetalk 03:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Death Machine

edit

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, 248 Google hits indicate no substantial following. Punkmorten 12:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 13:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dycaite

edit

Delete. Non-notable, vanity page. Xyzzyplugh 12:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge management

edit

Advertisement-like essay; irredeemably POV. Alphax τεχ 12:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Go ahead and delete the page, I could care less. But I will be deleting everything I've written. This page will have to be rewritten from scratch, because it is 99% my original writings. Capice? As it stands now, the KM definition is pretty useless, so good job at 'improving' the content. In fact, to put an end to this 'discussion' once and for all, because all my references have been removed, I'm taking down all of my content, and I do mean all. DO NOT PUT IT BACK UP, or you will be reported and banned for non-compliance of Wikireferencing. I will not have my work de-referenced.

If you have a problem with that, then write your own material. Stop BOTHERING me with your nonsense. 13/02/06

You can try but you will ultimately fail because you do not own it any more. The banning threat is pretty hollow: good luck in finding an admin who will act on it. Message left at your Talk page. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   17:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I don't know who you are, nor do I care. But if you continue to leave my work up there without referencing it, you will be banned. That's a promise.

Good luck finding an admin prepared to block me for reverting your WP:OWN violation. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   17:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To JzG, who has removed all my references? You are an ADMIN?? OK, I get it now. So Wikipedia wants non-referenced, non-copyright material. Whoever did this edit, well you know, good effort and all, but it now sucks. Sorry, I'm being objective. The article now sucks, the definition you've written sucks. If it was better than the previous article, I'd be the first to congratulate you. If you think these ideas just fall out of the sky, well that's why there called REFERENCES.


You are incapable of being objective about your own work. Everyone is. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   18:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't leave up material that has references, but you refuse to reference. Or are you making this up as you go along. So who can I talk about getting you banned, where are the other admins?

I have already posted it to the correct noticeboard, and if you want you can always add {{uncited}} to the top of the article, but actually apart form removing your namechecks most of what is in there counts as common knowledge, could be culled from any IBM Lotus whitepaper in the last ten years. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. JIP | Talk 08:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Deanda

edit

The article had a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion tag that was removed then replaced and then tagged with a db tag that was also removed. Listing here. No feelings on way or the other. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Album created with 'I AM' moved about 10,000 units, and subsequently she opened for Lionel Lovett on his American shows. Ruby 14:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to Strong Delete because I don't like legal threats, especially from purported Christians when Jesus said don't do it (see talk page). Ruby 17:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see her satisfying WP:BIO or WP:NMG. PJM 14:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as barely notable. Talk about namedropping and linkfarming! I'd reconsider if all the crap were cut from this article. But I doubt she'd be any more notable then. Prove me wrong, someone. -- Krash (Talk) 16:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Huston, we DO have a problem, she qualifies for WP:NMG, under Wiki's criteria, which is the guideline, and check discussion board, on the issue of comprehension and correct recitation of the actual article, already one major error in review by the second comment. The article is based on common encyclopedic style. The WP:NMG is the guideline and reference to the airplay, units sold, and cultural contribution of Breakfast With Amy and the number of offshoots in the genre, leading edge in thier genre specifically influencing that ahead of others. The rest on the discussion page. User:amplat 16:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who or what is "Huston" and why is the voicing of opinions different than your own a "problem"? PJM 17:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the third paragraph of WP:NMG -- those are guidelines meant to help facilitate discussion, not a replacement for consensus. And I don't see which of the guidelines she meets anyway. Tuf-Kat 02:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the artist, or any of her projects, meets any of the specific criteria at WP:MUSIC (WP:NMG). The article says that the first Breakfast with Amy album sold over 10,000 copies in a few weeks, but doesn't say how many it eventually sold. In any event, it has never been certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America, which would require sales of 500,000 copies. Delete unless verifiable evidence that the subject meets WP:MUSIC is produced. --Metropolitan90 01:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this article can be properly sourced in a way that establishes notability. The name only returns 12 non-unique Google hits [15] after discounting Wikipedia mirrors. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable at this time, for reasons already stated above. — TheKMantalk 17:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject of the article's above-mentioned legal threat (and an assertion of notability) has been moved to this discussion's talk page. —Cleared as filed. 17:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references for any of the claims is a big problem. It simply does not assert meeting WP:BIO or WP:NMG in any coherent way. Claims to be considered "legendary" - by whom? Ties to other bands and musicians are confusing and unreferenced, there's some name dropping but it's just "compared to" or "attended a lecture by", and at best "worked with" - in what capacity exactly? Only person contributing content seems to be the subject of the article, which is often cause for serious concern. Ultimately this needs some references to be cited, if they answer my questions, that might change my mind. --W.marsh 17:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more or less per Ruby. Removing articles about people who are critical of Wikipedia, or threaten to sue it, is a form of censorship. This incoherent, quasi-literate tantrum isn't a good reason to delete an article about a minimally notable musician, although some reference needs to be added to the article about the different names the musician has reportedly been credited under (since that's messing up the verifiability issues). Monicasdude 17:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some speedy footwork gets done establishing previously unreferenced notability. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because the legal threat made me do it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because there is no evidence of notability. The name-dropping is sickening as is the link farming. Check out the edit history. Clearly written by the person themselves or alternatively a friend or relative. Maustrauser 22:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Allmusic.com doesn't have an article on her. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Delete THIS IS THE PERSON ABOUT WHOM THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN. MY married name is Kim Deanda. My son has brought to my attention the exceptional immaturity going on here, pretending musical archival research. Wikipedia has a criteria cited above called WP:NMG, for persons of musical notariety. This offers general recommendations. Now, this entry was unfinished and contains no UPLOADED photos, as it was not finished, and this should be obvious. In fact, it wasn't even formatted until a day ago. Meanwhile, a bunch of people ran in here and attempted to research an entry that was unfinished. This created a problem. SECOND, the Wiki criteria states a recommendation that the person recieved radio airplay nationally and that the project was written up in a journal of thier peers. IN FACT, THIS IS THE CASE. The major Music journal was CCM MAGAZINE, which is the number one journal for Christian contemporary music and still is. The primary project I was associated with was Breakfast With Amy, as co-writer, and the Wiki criteria is for songwriters applied here specifically. IF you research the CCM archives you find they have still to upload the actual articles, as they trace back for 15 years or so, in the same way you can't find the Rolling Stone articles for many people. This is not surprising. Most magazines limit the number of back issues they scan onto the internet. However, looking at the WIki criteria, you see that it is enough to qualify B.W.A. as per their national radio airplay, association with Dakota Motor Company, which was on the cover of CCM, another I AM /AMY offshoot. What you find is that we are getting into a genre of music, as the Wiki criteria states, where the persons involved have been influenctial in beginning a 'movement' that influenced many bands to come: Christian Alternative. Here, you have a genre, as Wiki states, where you have the onset of the genre itself beginning with only a handful of people. Those people, in Christian music, changed the genre and developed a new one that has grown immensely. Now, there has been thousands of bands come out of what was originally a movement started by just a handful of folks in Orange County, California. The first such band, was 'I AM'. From 'I AM' came an offshoot of related projects that became nationally known in ivolving its memebers. THe bassplyer CHris Colbert went on to be the first major Christain Alt producer who has now produced over forty bands, and he currently heads the console of Gene Eugene, the first such CHristian producer. Our Guitarist, Koval, started both Amy and Dakota Motor Company, made the cover of CCM Magazine, too. That means the cover of the most important peer magazine inthe world for the entire genre. This was while he was in Amy. I am the singer from 'I AM', and I co-wrote songs for the first 'Amy' album with Koval and Colbert. It appears, Koval and I founded this genre, which is quite surprising, but, we did, and when we met Colbert, he could not even play his bass, but we gave him his start, and this led to a huge movement. AMY are the first Christian project EVER to be what is called 'da-'daist'...like Frank Zappa, the weirdest, strangest CHristian band that had ever come up. Nothing like it existed before ! This was like nothing I could explain but to compare it to Frank Zappa. According to Wiki, you want to see national radio airplay, I also mentioned DJ Diedre O' Donahue, who was the first alt DJ in Los Angeles, citing them as a favorite. They recived national airplay, people as far away as Germany known who they are. I was quite surprised how big this got and I am fair bowled over. THe article is not finishd folks, and in the field of music and archiving, there are research models that include looking up CCM Magazine. Mike Knott of the Lifesavers, also huge in the genree, now controls the re-issues, and what you will find is a unique genre that isn't Amy Grant or CC Wynan, but the CHristain Punk and Alt. genre. I was the first fenale Christian ALt. frontwoman that we know of, and from that project came so many people who changed CHristian music and developed a new genre. THIS is what Wiki is looking for, NOT just anybody's little band. You have to be connected to founding a movement and you have to influence many people who come after you. YOu have to get national radio airplay, etc. Frank Zappa is in this position, rarely selling more than 50k records, but he is in a class of his own, and Patty Smith, The Sex Pistols, Captain Beefheart. Since the article is being read by people who have no idea who opened the door for Creed and Switchfoot, especially, neither of whom I liked, but both are Christian, Stryper was the first such metal band and I would give the Sweet brothers and article here, as well as Mike Knott and the Lifesavers. YOu may not have eve heard of them, but millions of grown kids now know who they are and you are onto the beginning of an entire movement. CCM needs to get its archives up and get on the ball, but being the Rolling Stone of all CHistian music, who knows why they have only lists up. You can find all of these bands on those lists, but not the actual articles. Wiki is looking for the founders of the given genres, and that is in their list of notable requirements. PLease read the categories on the list entirely, and you will understand what this is about. In the meantime, the article still had no photos, no discography, and was just getting off the ground. THe people I have mentioned ALSO deserve an article here - especially Christ Colbert, Mike Knott, and Stryper. I would add Koval here, but I don't know where the guy is. Chris is very renown and he was my Co-writer, as mentioned. He had a lot of success in the secular Duralux, but mostly as the primary CHristian alt producer in the world today. SO, well, see. But I would appreciate a tone of some seriousness and trust about music archiving, and this is a model article to learn what that is. Wiki wants to be the largest info database in the world. That won't happen if everytime you run into something YOU have never heard of in your given taste and you try to delete it. Google hits won't bring up even the Rolling Stone archives. It is quite hairy when you get into notable actors of the twenties: have to go to the Bison Archives. So, I appreciate the maturity of people really interested in music archiving, but this does get goofy. The African heritage thing seems to be inciting something, too, and gosh, after months, the moment I put that up, there is a sudden problem - literally within the hour. Then, there is the Christian thing. Hey, folks, show some manners on the religious affiliation. This is an encyclopedia of the folk sort, anyone can edit, be an administrator, and it seems to open up the whole thing to reckless behavior and poor research models. Normal encyclopedias seek out and only hire the special specialists in each given genre (say, here, Mike Knott would be that), to write the entry for the given subject, but here you have anybody who can type knocking whatever they have never heard of and using models of research that don't fit the given entry, and tantrums and pseudo-intellectualism. I don't care either way about the article because it isn't locked and is part of a folk experiment that is causing a lot of people to withdraw because articles are constantly defaced. Everyone from Bill Gates, to the Country of Germany, to the Prime Minister of NOrway has had thier entry defaced and some with claims they are pedophiles and all kinds of garbage. Every five minutes the thing is a wreck ...and it doesn't look like it is going to stop. Record Co. websites are locked and the KH project will have that. This is just an experimental folk thing. Will it get better ? Maybe not. I don't care either way. Best of Luck —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.72.26.158 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-12 11:52:41.
Good luck with your career, and thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on Wikipedia :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Origami techniques. Babajobu 01:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain fold, Valley fold

edit

WP is WP:NOT a how-to. I feel badly about this, but this is instructions for a basic fold in Origami, already covered in as much detail as is appropriate at Origami_techniques. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

 Thank you. (Talk) 10:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge. W.marsh 16:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to specify a function

edit

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. --ScienceApologist 14:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. Not the best article, but the only thing that's non-encyclopedic about it is the title. It's not a how-to page, it's the beginning of a taxonomy that could become a reasonable subpage of function (expanding on the "Signifying functions" section).

Monicasdude 14:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a section in Function (mathematics) about specifying a function. This article, with or without the bad title, is essentially a 'how to'. PJM 15:19, 11 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 AK Steel Holding Corporation. Bratschetalk 04:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AK Steel

edit

A duplicate of AK Steel Holding Corporation Bangers 14:47, 11 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. Bratschetalk 04:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AutoHotkey.net

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. Bratschetalk 04:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unkown Secrets of Singapore

edit

What is the reason for this article? Sounds more like a blog website --HamedogTalk|@ 15:22, 11 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. Bratschetalk 04:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristopher Dukes

edit

Delete per nom. Howabout1 16:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll bite. Annoying as Kristopher may be, the article asserts, with apparently verifiable sources, that she writes regularly "in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." And writing regularly for the WWD group is a pretty clear signal of notability. So what's the case for deletion, since vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion. Monicasdude 18:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. It would, of course, be malicious and inappropriate, not to mention being an object lesson, to make one's decision based on the expectation that, since Kristopher is required to release her copyright on her publicity photo under GFDL, it would soon enough appear in phone sex advertising all over metro LA . . .[reply]

    • Comment: Maybe I'm too stupid to find it but I can't find any examples of her supposed writing. All I've found is blog entries on her www.shopetc.com link. Her topbutton.com link has a search - when I search on her name, I get nothing. Her http://www.stylekristopherdukes.com/ external link is broken. Her personal web site appears to have no links to the outside world and is slathered with ads (which I'm sure are getting her plenty of $ during this Afd). I'm having trouble proving that this isn't a total hoax. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Use the "CLIPS" link at the top of her website. You get article texts plus embedded scans of the print articles, including at least two recent clips from Women's Wear Daily (WWD) group magazines. And WWD is serious business, trivial as its subjects often are. Monicasdude 22:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And not a total hoax [16], but a writer who will likely be menacing the English language for years to come . . . Monicasdude 01:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. WWD is serious business, but writing two articles for "WWD Los Angeles" is not. If that were the threshhold for Wikipedia inclusion, we'd be flooded with non-notable freelancers...like Kristopher Dukes. Steve Casburn 04:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per monicasdude Jcuk 19:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: BTW, I'll bet the standard vanity criteria will be met, i.e. you'll never see another edit from her outside of her own article (and this Afd if she ever comes back). I know --- WP:VAIN --- but still... It's amazing - and a little sickening - how often this happens. "How can I make Wikipedia work for me me me me?" You could spend all day watching new articles come in and delete them 3 or 4 at a time. She's gotten a few poorly-written articles into magazines - I got a poem into a short-story magazine once as a kid. Do I get an article? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity, per nom


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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratschetalk 04:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cal courts

edit

non-notable. It's a local health club with two locations. RJFJR 15:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Howabout1 16:52, 11 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. Bratschetalk 04:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Children: Uganda

edit

Political rant for some NN organisation Paul Carpenter 16:13, 11 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, withdrawn by nominator. Babajobu 01:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norayr Mnatsakanyan

edit

Seems to be a NN Armenian Folk Artist. Poorly written (although that's not a reason for it to be deleted). Quoted search of "Norayr Mnatsakanyan" brings up one result, on the artist's album, but not the artist himself. Editor has edited two articles: This one, and Music of Armenia, to promote this artist. New user, however. Kareeser|Talk! 16:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Difficult one, but an Armenian folk singer who died in the 1980s seems to be just the kind of thing where Google can not be expected to be of much help (transcription issues have to be taken into account as well). We really need somebody with a knowledge of Armenian and access to good printed sources to check this one. I wish we had a way of moving this type of article to a holding area for future checking. Is there an Armenian wikiproject that could keep this as a subpage? If there is, move it there. u p p l a n d 21:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I observed the article creation at Special:Newpages, but the sheer amount of information made me keep it on my watchlist. I knew that this wasn't a good article to {{prod}}, as it is a potentially controversial issue... =) Kareeser|Talk! 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is objectively written and contains specificity to the Armenian arts. For inquiries regarding this artist, refer to the Armenian State Television website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.118.165 (talk • contribs) .
The validity of this article can be verified by inquiries from the Public Radio and Television of the Republic of Armenia. Television programs and video footage exists to support the information reflected in the article. The deletion of the article without verifying the validity of its content is a serious violation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.118.165 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment — The fact that the article is listed on the AFD is not a "Serious violation", as you have put it. It simply brings the article to light that it was poorly sourced. The concensus so far seems to be that this is a noteworthy article. However, it was poorly written, which was why it was listed in the first place. In the original (and current) versions, where are the links to the "Public Radio and Television of the Republic of Armenia"? As you are the creating editor, it should be your duty to prove to the community that the subject is notable, and not for the people to find out for themselves. Kareeser|Talk! 06:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author of the article, and an Armenian by ethnicity. I have observed many articles on Armenia and Armenians on the pages of Wikipedia, many of which contain distortions of historical facts, are not only poorly written but also create fictions on a given subject. The information contained in this article is factual and verifiable. Moreover, all this information exists in the documentary archives of the Armenian Public Radio and Television. However, because the artist lived before the worldwide web became available in Armenia, these sources were not digitized. All that exists on the internet for this artist are his own recordings remastered by the official permission of the Public Radio and Television of Armenia to make these works massively available. There have also been different opinions on the artist's activity throughout the worldwide web. However, the main sources, which I used to write the article, are the numerous articles about Norayr Mnatsakanyan in different Armenian language periodicals of Soviet Armenia. Almost all of these are not in circulation any longer and consequently have no appropriate websites. I also used the programs and the video footage by the Public Television of Armenia about the artist, which is not available online either. As for the article being poorly written, perhaps, it does not reflect the conventions set up by Wikipedia. At the same time, however, it adequately and insightfully presents the artist to the Wikipedia reader in its theamtic specificity. Not only your consensus but also the consensus of the entire Armenian nation will prove to anyone the notability of this artist. I will welcome any suggestions and/or help to properly edit the article and appropriate it to your norms.
    • All you really need to do is to list all the published sources (articles in periodicals etc.) you have used under a header called "References" in a way which makes it possible for anyone to locate the publications. That will make it easy for anyone to verify the content. (Or at least for anyone reading Armenian - you may consider giving references to some Russian language sources, if any are available, as Russian is more widely read.) The systemic bias in Wikipedia often makes it difficult for the average reader to understand the significance of some topics, as the necessary cultural context (other articles on related topics) is missing. This leads to this type of discussion, but as long as a good case can be made for the notability of a specific topic, it will survive. Don't let this discussion scare you away, and please continue to contribute to the coverage of Armenian culture on Wikipedia. u p p l a n d 09:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will undertake all the necessary changes for the article. I have technical issues with the refernce section. As you may have seen, I have added the links for both the Armenian Public Radio and Television. However, the literary, and general-circulation periodicals, which wrote about the artist are no longer in circulation. Naturally, the latter have no websites. I can simply provide a bibliography page for the article. The interested readers may refer to the websites in the External Links section, which leads to the artist's albums and several online articles and fora where he has been mentioned.

Perhaps you can find online publications of the journals. I know universities have scanned or transcripted journals online or in storage. Perhaps you can check for the "hard" copies there. At any rate, you've prove your point, and I now change my vote to Keep. Kareeser|Talk! 16:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kareeser, thank you for your decision to withdraw your vote for this article's deletion. The hard copies are all available and I can provide an official bibliography for them and have them translated into English to prove my point further and justify the expectations of the Wikipedia community. Again, many thanks!


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

The result of the debate was even with brand new users not factored in, still no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 01:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Ju Jitsu Association

edit

Delete non-notable, self written article (see older revisions for use of the word "we") Howabout1 16:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 19:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a logical extension of the links section in the Ju Jitsu page, and is therefore seems notable enough. In fact, it would be nice if the other links in that page all had pages in them. Dbol 21.10, 11 February 2006 (BST) (User's 2nd edit.)
  • Keep If this article should be deleted because its nn, then the other Ju Jitsu association articles should be deleted as well, they are equaly self written and self promoting. At least this one is short. JBC240, 11 February 1751 (MST)(User's first edit.)
  • Keep Yeh I aggree with Jcuk, its notable enough for its context. There is nothing wrong with this article that couldn't be solved by improving the layout, and adding some more information Johndzl, 12 February 0204 (GMT)(User's first edit.)

WHAT IS A WP:POINT? COULD SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WITHOUT JARGON WHY YOU DON'T LIKE THIS PAGE?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dougmarkham (talk • contribs) 2006-02-11 12:45:35.

WP:POINT, is wikipedia's policy aganst editing to make a point, Jcuk was voting to prove his point that if articles on cartoons can stay, many things should. Click on the link if you're still curious. We think the page should be deleted because it it isn't big or important enough for wikipedia. If you have any more questions feel free to use my talk page. Also, please sigh you're posts with four tildes. LIke this~~~~. Howabout1 20:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think we're being a bit racist here! This article is no worse that our 'American Judo & Jujitsu Federation' article!! Why are you guys picking on Scotland? If the AJJF, the Katabami Ryu Ju-Jitsu, the AJJIF people and the Sanuces Ryu school can have a nn page, then why not the SJJA? ZaccSchol, 11 February 21:17:14 (EST)(User's first edit.)
  • Keep I sure as hell know what goin on here people, Howabout1 is all sour grapes because he don't wanna admit that his English BJJA has lost its governing body status over Scotland (hehehe). I got friends over there, I know whats goin down! Be a grown up Howabout1, and let the Scottish have their webpage ;-) No wonder alot of folk hate the English StrzNStrips, 11 February 21:32:54 (EST)(User's first edit.)
  • Delete as an article created in violation of WP:POINT, the point in question being that paragraph in all caps at the top of the article. Beyond that it's pretty much {{nn-club}}, its website is the right place for this info. Oh, and I generally vote to delete on meatpuppet-infested AFD debated anyway. Stifle 23:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important to coverage of Jujitsu in Scotland, helps to fight bias against "meatpuppet infestations". Kappa 18:21, 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/redirect. W.marsh 15:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelity (House episode)

edit

Non-notable episode, doesn't contain any information that List of House episodes doesn't have. Will 17:11, 11 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 was delete. Sango123 00:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altruistic economics

edit

fully OR, not a notable offshoot of economics. JBKramer 05:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was O RLY Keep. Jaranda wat's sup 01:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY?

edit

Survived the last AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O RLY?), but still thoroughly unencyclopedic, and throughout the three months since the last AfD, has been a vandalism magnet and has been used to justify the existence of many unencyclopedic articles. There is no way that a serious encyclopedia, online or not, should include this one. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wikipedia is a place to get information. This article contains usefull information.
  • Keep it. Wikipedia isn't the freaking World Book. This is a unique entity, and it is used by us, the people, to define the world around us.
  • Keep seriously just keep it if you guys delete articles then what is soo good of wikipedia shouldnt it have all kinds of information?
  • Keep There are bigger fish to fry in Wikipedia.
  • KeepPopular culture is a part of culture and as such part of our society and daily life. You will agree with me that internet today also forms some kind of popculture, right? the "ORLY" expression has to be looked upon as part of this. so why delete it? if you delete this you should do the same for Freebird and other popular expressions from popculture. I do agree however that this article is not really what you imagine as enyclopediac style. but deletion is the wrong impulse. deletion will spawn thousand new articles instead. so go ahead and try to rework this article to an encyclopediac level and then lock it from vandalism.
  • If O RLY goes, LUEshi goes. I think most people would agree that they're on the same level here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for just about everything that you don't understand or know, and I find it to be a very good place to go when I have no idea who the chuckling pirate baron I see is. Keep. --Blinkstale 17:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether LUEshi should be deleted is a different issues. We have to take them one at a time; otherwise, we get into a "we should keep A because B is not deleted" and "we should keep B because A is not deleted" cycle forever. --Nlu (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1) The last nomination resulted in a consensus to keep, so we can ignore 'still thoroughly encyclopaedic' because it wasn't a problem last time and so shouldn't be this time. As for the new reasons, 2) Vandalism isn't even close to being a big problem on this page. I've seen high-vandalism targets, this isn't one of them. 3) We certainly shouldn't delete articles just to make arguing a certain side on AfD easier. --Malthusian fa(talk) 17:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, why? What redeeming value does it have that people should be informed about it? --Nlu (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What standing do we have to decide that people should not be informed on a notable topic? User:Adrian/zap2.js 21:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
If they want to be informed, they can go elsewhere. It's not like Wikipedia owns the Internet. What Wikipedia aims to be is to be an encyclopedia; something this unencyclopedic does not belong. --Nlu (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not seem to be in favor of your contention. Wikipedia exists for the benefit of the reader, and it's most appropriate for us to include topics that users are likely to search for information on. User:Adrian/zap2.js 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You wouldn't dare! >:( "SRSLY" though, this is widespread enough that I think it's worth keeping. (I ended up here because I was looking for a link to explain to my friend what "O RLY" is.) In her words, "The whole world knows and I'm the only one left out :(" Keep. --jeian 18:46, 11 February 2006 (GMT+1)
Being well-known doesn't mean that it's not extremely, extremely stupid. --Nlu (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely true, but stupidity is not, and never has been, a criteria for deletion. (Unfortunately.) Marblespire 04:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and enough with people nominating notable phrases or memes for deletion. User:Adrian/zap2.js 19:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm a 4channer, but I honestly don't think this should be here, nor LUEshi. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of underground community memes. --Anonymous, 21:31 CET, 11 February 2006 - actually posted by 82.159.70.25 (talk · contribs)
  • Keep Definitely worthy of a place, and has survived the VFD before — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winckle (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I see no reason to remove information from Wikipedia. Non-notable is hardly a valid arguement for something I'm sure 90% of Wikipedia users have heard about. --Falcorian (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable internet memes are encycolpedic. Might I also mention here that anyone interested in this type of issue should voice their opinions in the deletion review of Brian Peppers. VegaDark 21:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete RLY TRLY. This is not a meme worthy of inclusion, it is a passing fad not even making a ripple on the surface of the memepool. We are not l33t-sp33k, nor are we an urban dictionary. Lose the fluff and lets try to fill in the redlinks of truly notable stuff, shall we? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a massive internet phenomenon, probably more often used than leet. --Rory096 23:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep silly but notable. Content of the article seems fine. Mikker ... 23:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for an encyclopedia, this is utter nonsense.--Sgstarling 00:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Still, even things that are extremely, extremely stupid might find a place inside the warm walls of Wikipedia. Many things that Wikipedia contain are quite narrow (smaller communes in France are surely not the interest of most of the world's English speaking population), but still worthy of inclusion. The O RLY-owl is definately worth the inclusion, and probably much more well known than the commune of Tulle. The petty space it occupies is surely not vast enough to warrant an exclusion. I'm quite sure the O RLY-owl isn't keeping us from analyzing imperialism in Africa, or the ungoing struggle against poverty. Ya RLY, keep the owl!Shandolad 00:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it was unencyclopedic, it wouldn't have survived the last AfD. the iBook of the Revolution 00:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for all people might hate the meme, it's fairly notable. We should write on notable things whether they're silly or not. -- Mithent 03:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, o rly is more of an internet meme than most of the halfassed crap I've never heard of that's listed in the memes article, so it shouldn't be singled out for deletion. The article itself upholds all of Wikipedia's values regarding NPOV and verifiability. I hate o rly and find it vastly annoying but it's still just as valid a topic for discussion as AYB etc. Some winamp 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If vandals are a problem, why don't we just protect the page? Deleting an article just to stop vandalism article seems a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Marblespire 04:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the vandalism; it's that this is an article that has no redeeming value that I see and brings only trouble. There's nothing to balance the trouble of dealing with the vandalism against, because this article has no value. --Nlu (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:This article's redeeming value is that it provides information on an obviously notable subject. Honestly, I think it needs no other justification than that. --Falcorian (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could say less about your personal page, regarding global familiarity. Does that mean it should be deleted? -Akaroo 23:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My user page, and the user pages of anyone else here, are not meant to be encyclopedic. You will not find it in a search of wikipedia unless you are deliberately looking for it and know precisely how to ask for it. Besides, user pages are not bound by the same rules that articles are. If this troubles you, you can always raise your concern at the village pump. Denni ☯ 01:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding asanine comments about people's personal pages, I'd estimate that less than 5% of people in first-world countries know what a cyclotron is. Obscurity is not itself adequate reason for the removal of an article. As it stands, Wikipedia is quickly becoming a place where people can go to quickly find out what a word or phrase means, and that's not a bad thing at all for an online encyclopedia to be.Fdgfds 19:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly. Just today I remembered a show I watched when I was little called Zoobilee Zoo. When I looked it up on wikipedia there was only a picture and some brief information about it, but that's all I wanted. O RLY might not be much more than a picture of some owl and a short blurb about it, but people will hear it being used and they will come to this site to find an unbiased answer on what it is. What good (to the average internet user) is an encyclopedia that only has "sophisticated" information? -Akaroo 19:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Myles Long 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Being an Internet-based encyclopedia, these sorts of articles would be of interest and note to many of its users. It meets notability; just because it is vandalized often is not a reason to delete. The Featured Articles also get vandalized often and nobody puts them up for AfD. Crystallina 02:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's impossible to simply disreguard this article as a passing fad, since it is impossible to predict how long the meme will last. I've seen O RLY being used in real life in a similar manner as on the internet by numerous people, suggesting that it is far from diminishing in strength. Also, 95 percent of people not having heard of the term is totally irrelevant. 95 percent of people have not heard of Simo Hayha. It is ridiculous to continue trying to delete this article because you don't like the outcome of a previous delete vote. Instead, try fixing the article if it's so "unencyclopedic." Anyhow, the article is obviously notable because of the large response it is generating, thus it should not be deleted. syphonbyte 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. O RLY?! 70.152.47.105 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pure nonsense? Explain what part of social symbol dynamics is 'nonsense'. -Akaroo 23:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SRSLY! Meme's like this has as much impact on daily life in the modern age as the catch phrase 'Hey Charger' did in the 70s. The Medium that its cast upon has changed, but the idea has not. O RLY 4 Teh Win~~1111oneleven!!11.
  • Keep. Very large and popular meme, I usually link this exact page to help explain it to people who haven't seen it before User:Senner 18:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not very many internet memes are notable, this one is. Hall Monitor 22:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of these users claim that O RLY isn't worth hosting on wikipedia because it is not notable enough. Yet when you click on the personal article for these same users, they have dozens of kilobytes worth of worthless information on their page. Sure, we'll delete O RLY on the grounds that it's not important enough as soon as you delete your entire bio that maybe a few dozen users will ever look at.
    The fact is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not some ritzy collection of articles arbitrated by self-proclaimed psuedo-intellectuals. Everything from kitty litter to physics belong here. -Akaroo 23:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_litter
You realize that we can't really accept that as good argument, right? SoothingR 21:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shame, as it's a good one. James Kendall [talk] 22:41, 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. Bratschetalk 04:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Views on the Fourth Dimension

edit

This article seems to be completely an opinion piece by one person, and therefore isn't encyclopedic. It should be deleted or moved to the user's page. Tetracube 17:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems to be mainly original research.—Tetracube 17:49, 11 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. Bratschetalk 04:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kharotha-Khel

edit

Apart from the fact that this article uses nothing but caps, this topic seems to be made up. A google search query returns nothing, except Wikipedia pages. Therefore; unverifiable, hoax...delete.  SoothingR 18:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Oddly enough, they may be notable. The places are certainly real - they are in Pakistan. The parent tribe given, Daulat Khel, exists and has an article here on WP. They are Pashtuns. It certainly should not be hyphenated - but if the tribe exists it is either misspelled or not much exposure on the Internet. Did you Google the individual names? There is so little information given in the article, it is hard to be sure one has found a match. There seem to be a million Zahid Khans, it is a common last name, but some of the names are first/middle/last and we may be able to make sense of this given time. There are a lot of Khans here [19], for example, some of the names match. I'm going to look a bit more, I would appreciate others also looking, as the article appears to have been written by a non-native speaker of English. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Stifle 23:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been looking, but I'm inclined to agree. I have not been able to verify the information as presented. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article says "The famous people of this tribe are particularly from one family because of their influence on people due their down to earth policy and their names are...". This is obviously nonsense. utcursch | talk 11:40, 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 no consensus. Bratschetalk 04:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Kick (album)

edit

Delete. Not notable, page makes no case for notability; album no longer even in print, according to Amazon. Steve Casburn 19:57, 11 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 00:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Special (store)

edit

This article miraculously survived an AFD a little while ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midnight Special) with very few votes, in spite of the fact the article only says that it's a store in Santa Monica, making it borderline speediable. Not a single claim of notability, nor any indication that it's anything other than one of several hundred thousand bookstores in the country. -R. fiend 20:09, 11 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. – Robert 23:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zvezdelina Todorova

edit

I am nominating this article because of clear non-notability of the subject. Since there have been several cases when articles of non-notable people have been kept because of their talent (which is certainly not a criteria for inclusion), I shall explain the nomination more detailed as it is perhaps common.

  1. She has won the first prize at the Dimitar Nenov National Pianist Competition. She has played twice with the Symphonic Orchestra of the Opera and Philharmonics Society, Stara Zagora. Both are local and absolutely non-notable. Google agrees.
  2. All of her education was in Romania, no notable teachers.
  3. Correpetition is very rarely a criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Correpetition of not specified musicians at minor competitions is never.
  4. Her chamber music colleagues and the composer whose works she performes do not have Wikipedia articles. Her concerts in other countries are admirable, but nowadays it really is no big deal.

With all this having been said, I vote strongly delete. Missmarple 20:39, 11 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 Throat lozenge. – Robert 23:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throat lozenger

edit

Delete. This appears to be either a hoax or a genuine misundertanding. "Lozenge" is a noun, not a verb, and refers to the cough drop's shape. Ashenai 20:43, 11 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 Longhair as biographical article with no claim to notability (CSD:A7). Stifle 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan werch

edit

non-notable biography. Simply being a member of a college basketball team does not automatically infer notability. What has Ryan Werch done that makes him notable? Batman2005 21:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep - nomination withdrawn -- Ian ≡ talk 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Rotherham

edit

non-notable biography of cricket player. Googling subject brings virtually no mention. Batman2005 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this article three minutes before it was tagged for deletion. It is one of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket's priority tasks to create biographies on all Wisden Cricketers of the Year, which is itself a featured list. Gerard Rotherham may not be the most distinguished of the cricketers that Wisden has selected, but he's there, and the series would be incomplete without him. Johnlp 22:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm at an utter loss as to how anyone can say that a Wisden Cricketer of the Year is non-notable. It's like saying a physicist is non-notable despite winning the Nobel Prize. -dmmaus 22:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tintin. Tango 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I AM NOT A TROLL I unfortunately mistyped this cricketers name when I googled it and not suprisingly found no mention of him. I then redid it after seeing so many people saying how notable he was and I concede my mistake. There is however, no need to call me a troll. I just tire of coming to wikipedia and seeing articles for minorly important people who offer great claims of notability. This article is clearly not one of those, but i'm sure you all understand my frustration with people who create articles about somebody just because they played semi-pro baseball or ran in a state election, etc. Batman2005 21:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 01:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OffTopic.com

edit

Unencyclopedic overinflation of itself. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:11, 11 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 16:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciochina Serban

edit

no assertion of notabiliy, or why it should be included. Simply says persons name and what they do. As well, was created by the subject. Batman2005 21:17, 11 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 List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. – Robert 23:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jurrok

edit

This is not at all encyclopedic. Batman2005 21:24, 11 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 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALPHABETUM

edit

Delete. Extremely obscure font with almost no Google hits, and no history of discussion in the comp.fonts newsgroup. Looks like it was created as an advertisement. —Chowbok 21:24, 11 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 TheParanoidOne as per CSD:A7, biographical article with no notability asserted. Stifle 23:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Bhambra

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declan James McMahon

edit

The article was previously deleted last June for a lack of notability (only real note was that he was the infant grandson of Vince McMahon). The article has been recreated but still there's a lack of notability. --Oakster 21:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable pointless article about an infant. Batman2005 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted by Zoe as a copyvio from http://www.intentblog.com/author.php?author=Vikas%20Khanna. --Gurubrahma 15:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Khanna

edit

non-notable, vanity bio, self authored by the subject Batman2005 21:30, 11 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. r3m0t talk 18:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby 'Cosmo' Martin

edit

This is absolutely hilarious, possible for BJAON but non encyclopedic nontheless. Batman2005 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is great and absolutely hilarious. I would not eliminate this article as just to read the article makes one smile and parhaps recall a like animal in one's life similar to Bobby Martin

While I agree that the article is different, I found it very informative and well written. My vote is to keep it in the encyclopedia for informational purposes.


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

Very well written article with some informative content.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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!) 07:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America Deceived by E.A. Blayre III

edit

reads like a critique of the work, suffers from grotesque point of view. Batman2005 21:38, 11 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/merge. W.marsh 15:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of a Balla

edit

google knows nothing about this non-notable radio broadcast. Batman2005 21:42, 11 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. No verification provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newport creampiery

edit

The subject does not appear to have any special significance that causes it to merit an encyclopedia article. --Mysidia (talk) 22:05, 11 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 09:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Gulko

edit
  • Tagged {prod} and contested, so bringing here. Subjectt received the Bronze Star. This article does not tell us why. Or where. Or whether he survived the war. Or indeed pretty much anythign beyond "name rank and number" Oh, wait - no rank. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   22:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If improved with info keep, otherwise delete Tawker 22:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - absolutely unnoteworthy. The bronze star is the lowest valor award (aside from an ARCOM with V device), and participating in a battle in and of itself doesnt make you noteworthy. The only references to the famous war-hero Benjamin Gulko are on Wikipedia. Monicasdude objects saying its not enough to delete because there is only one page linking to this entry, and then says even though a google hit only returns 66 entries, most for a chess player, that google isnt a detailed source of info on veterans. My name gives 126 hits on google, and I have a bronze star - maybe I should have an entry in wikipedia....Nobunaga24 02:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - don't see how this can be expanded. Renata 02:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bronze star is an assertion of notability so it's not a speedy, but certainly not a keep. Stifle 23:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 16:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Nievez

edit

Delete nn "shock jock". 1 Google hit for "Jimmy Nievez" and 29 Google hits for '"Jimmy Nieves" radio'. And delete anything that uses the word fructiferous.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 22:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am a true Jimmy Nieves fan. This information is true and accurate. I would appreciate it's inclusion to the Wikipedia Biography pages. Jimmy is a public figure and a recognized Radio and TV host in the New York Hispanic (Spanish) community. For references please go to:

1- Best Hispanic On-Air Personality - Music Format: http://www.nymrad.org/air.html

2- Hispanic Wire: http://hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=4513&cha=7

3- Radio Al Aire: http://www.radioalaire.com/entrevista_JimmyNieves.php

4- La Kalle 105.9 FM: http://www.univision.com/content/channel.jhtml?chid=9486&schid=9497 , http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=387833 , http://www.univision.com/content/channel.jhtml?chid=9486&schid=9497&secid=9499

5- El Diario La Prensa New York's Hispanic Newspaper: http://www.eldiariony.com/noticias/digoyo.aspx?section=28&Txtid=971589 , http://www.eldiariony.com/noticias/detail.aspx?section=23&desc=Comunidad&id=1241437 , http://www.eldiariony.com/noticias/detail.aspx?section=21&desc=Espect%C3%A1culos&id=1001041

6- Alto Manhattan .com http://www.altomanhattan.com/jangueo/eljangueo.htm

7- Puertricans.com: http://www.puertoricans.com/FESTIVAL/oct262004/

8- New York Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/ent_radio/story/297216p-254453c.html

9- La Tribuna Hispana (News): http://www.latribunahispana.com/news/one_news.asp?IDNews=9376

10- Hispanic Business: http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=24402


As you can see Jimmy, deserves to be included in your great encyclopedia.


Thank you.

Jimmy's # 1 Fan

  • Delete Not impressed by editors who remove AFD prior to the vote. If the links above are genuine then it should be in the Spanish Wikipedia rather than the English one. Maustrauser 05:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is more of a personal attack than relevant to this question: the notability of the article does not depend on the WP-savvy of the advocates, nor even on their character. And please amplify why es: but not en: -- IMO, the assertion of relevance to English-speaking people, even if it is primarily via their command of Spanish, supports notability to en:. Also the apparent impact on how things are done in two predominantly English-speaking markets, and in another where English is, i assume, an extremely widely spoken second language.

Why other artist or latino celebrities:(Luis Miguel , Alejandro Fernandez , Juanes , Antonio Sanchez (Puerto Rican host) , Celia Cruz...) can appear in the English Wikipedia then? This is not fair! Gabriela01

If your arguments are sound then you will not have your article deleted Maustrauser 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me. They are!

Links #

1- Best Hispanic On-Air Personality - Music Format: http://www.nymrad.org/air.html

8- New York Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/ent_radio/story/297216p-254453c.html

10- Hispanic Business: http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=24402

All belong to English Web Pages Or News Papers.

More genuine that the New York Daily News link it could not be!

Also check Hispanic PR Wire: http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=4513&cha=7

For another of thousands of example tha prove my point, see: Roberto González Nieves

His real name or birth name is Jimmey Nievez, but he is Known in the industry , the media, and by his fans as Jimmy Nieves. It's like Daddy Yankee (Raymond Ayala), John Wayne was born Marion Robert Morrison, Marilyn Monroe (born Norma Jeane Mortensen),Tom Cruise is the stage name of {Thomas Cruise Mapother IV) and thousands of others... Can you imagen? With that name {Thomas Cruise Mapother IV) Tom, would never be famous!

My point is that he should be included in the English-speaking Wikipedia, encyclopedia as Jimmy Nieves.

Also Jimmy Nieves, was born in New York City (USA-Citizen), and speaks fluent English. He is a North American son of Puerto Rican emigrants. Remember that the United States was was formed by emigrants.

Isn't that enough?

Well here I have more references... "Enjoy":

But it is undeniable that as a result of the Spanish-American War in 1898 and the eventual transfer from Spanish Colony to US sovereignty (1898-1952) to Commonwealth (1952-present), the majority of the people of Puerto Rico feel pride in their nationality as "Puerto Ricans", regardless of the individual's particular racial, ethnic, political or economic background.

Asked about whether she felt Puerto Rican or not by a popular men's magazine, New York native model and rap singer Gloria Velez declared that "(she) was born in Long Island, (her parents) were born in New York, but (her) grandparents were born in Puerto Rico, so (she is) 100 percent Puerto Rican". Also, there are many of those who are half Puerto Rican that have publicly stated their pride in being Puerto Ricans, such is the case of Freddie Prinze, Tony Orlando, Sammy Davis, Jr., Freddie Prinze Jr., and Geraldo Rivera. This is a feeling shared by most (if not all) Puerto Ricans born outside Puerto Rico. Wilfred Benitez is another famous person who was not born in Puerto Rico but feels proud of being Puerto Rican. Many others are proud to be American citizens as well.

Some Puerto Ricans also refer to themselves as "Boricua." This term comes from the word "Boriken" (Borínquen) which was what the Taíno Indians called the Island of Puerto Rico.

C'mon now tell me your also going to take out Sammy Davis, Jr., from the English-speaking Wikipedia, encyclopedia.

By the way JLO (Jennifer López) is also half Puerto Rican. Another famous person who was not born in Puerto Rico but their parents are Puerto Rican. By the way... Isn't she gorgeous?

  • Actually, no, I personally don't think she is, but that's just me. And I agree with Zoe, he doesn't seem to be notable at all. And as someone mentioned above, we do have other hispanics mentioned here, some even with stage names (Martin Sheen comes to mind). If the article on Jimmy Nievez (or whatever) doesn't stand here, it's because he's not notable, not because there's some hidden agenda by anyone. Strong delete.--み使い Mitsukai 16:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Nieves with more than 20+ years of carrear in the Radio and TV Broadcasting industry and awarded by NYMRAD (Morning Stars 2005) and The New York Metro Air Awards, is very notable. Best Hispanic On-Air Personality - Music Format: http://www.nymrad.org/air.html Please don't tell me that Antonio Sanchez (Puerto Rican host), is more notable than Jimmy Nieves and Antonio Sanchez is included in the English-speaking Wikipedia, encyclopedia.

Also remember that NYC, is ranked the (Arbitron) # 1, Radio Market in the world. Only the best make it and Jimmy Nieves, made it in "Big Apple"!

The 6:00 to 10:00 am. slot (Morning Show), is the prime time and most competitive daypart of any station. In New York you go against the best including Howard Stern.

If that's not notable... Tell me... What it is?

Jimmy's # 1 Fan.

Reference: http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRRatings/DetailsPage.aspx?MID=184&RY=2005&RQ=4&MP=0&OTHER=2&MN=New%20York&MS=NY&MR=1&12P=15332000&UP=1/10/2006%2012:00:00%20AM&SU=CM&BPER=17.5&HPER=19.1&OPER=&NSD=2/27/2006%2012:00:00%20AM&CE=0

http://www.arbitron.com/radio_stations/mm001050.asp

Jimmy is a very recognized figure in the NYC Hispanic community. I am a true fan of his show El Jangueo. Don't delete! This article should stay.

  • No vote yet, as arguments on each side leave much room for improvement. Googling
"Jimmy Nievez" OR "Jimmy Nieves" OR "Jimmey Nievez" OR "Jimmey Nieves"
i get "...88 out of about 220". Can one of the retention advocates explain that surprisingly low result -- BTW, please without expressing fan loyalty nor political arguments, they being valuable and interesting, but off-topic on this page.
--Jerzy•t 19:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Crawford

edit

Taggd for {prod} and contested, bringing here instead. Not on Allmusic. One almbum at Amazon (apparently with label Sky Rocket Productions, describes itself as dealing with up and coming acts), one available through amazon but from an external source. Article sucks, but that may not be any indication. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   22:16, 11 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 07:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L'mur-Kathulos

edit

tagged for {prod} and contested, bringing here instead. From the article: L'mur-Kathulos is an obscure reference in H. P. Lovecraft's short story "The Whisperer in Darkness" ... Do we usually have articles for obscure references with conjecture as to their origin? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   22:18, 11 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 16:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sped (disambiguation)

edit

Tagged for {prod} but disputed, bringing here instead. From the article: “Sped” is a term, largely incomprehensible outside of the American state of Maryland, combining the words “Special Education.” Its use can be either derogatory or can be considered educational jargon. Er, right. Mostly a series of what looks suspiciously like insults. A strong smell of something made up in school one day. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   22:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but for different reasons than Guy suggests. I think the word is more common outside Maryland than the article's author realizes. But Sped currently redirects to Speed, which has a link at the top to Special education. I think that's enough info on "sped" for Wikipedia. I can't see anyone looking up "Sped (disambiguation)" without having first looked up "sped". --Allen 23:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I always agree with JzG, almost. Stifle 23:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am from Maryland and am very familiar with this term as it is described in the article. I will attempt to find some sources so as to verify it, but I can tell you that it is true. This was not "made up in school one day." The kids there have been saying it since I was in gradeschool, and I have yet to hear of it in any other state. History21
  • Keep As a Maryland resident, an educator, and a grandmother, I can certify that use of this word is widespread among the youth. I do not know how widespread it is in other states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan53 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete as copyvio. W.marsh 16:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helltrain

edit

currently a copyvio, but don't let that fool you into thinking the content was any good. If this band is notable (which it might be, the article does not make much of a case), someone will be along with something better Real Soon Now. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   22:45, 11 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 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dadabase

edit

ad Delete -Doc ask? 22:49, 11 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 with List of minor Star Wars characters. This is consistent with the inclusion guidelines about fictional characters in general can be found at WP:FICT. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fliry Vorru

edit

Tagged for prod and disputed, bringing here. Minor character in fanfic (not Star Wars film franchise), already on Wikicities at http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Fliry_Vorru. I call fancruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   22:50, 11 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 07:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aghora (band)

edit

not meet WP:MUSIC - nothing on allmusic.com Delete -Doc ask? 22:54, 11 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 02:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael W. Moore

edit

Completeley non notatable person who has never been heard of by most people. DELETE!--Light current 01:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwiki. W.marsh 16:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atjar

edit

delete indonesian dicdef. Melaen 12:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 23:21, 11 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.

Atjar is the Dutch spelling for acar. I think a redirection is best. Simon de Danser (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 02:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Rimal

edit

Article has been tagged for cleanup since last August, it hasn't been, because it is unencyclopedic, and confusing, almost nonsense DVD+ R/W 23:36, 11 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, this article was recently expanded and many of the delete votes were based on the article being a substub. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Control and Indicating Equipment

edit

Lack of information and generalisation. →AzaToth 20:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep: virtually useless as it stands, but this does seem to be an accepted technical term in the fire alarm industry and one or two others, so might with a lot of work become of some value.Staffelde 02:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 23:45, 11 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. Babajobu 01:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unununium (operating system)

edit
  • Here is what I (a Unununium author) sad to say on Unununium's mailing list:

Well, I can't say much about the current Uuu page on wikipedia. It's pretty much a copy of unununium.org, and much of it is inacurate or dated. As the page exists, it is nonnotable. As the FAQ says explicitly, the value of Unununium is not in its software, but in its ideas. I think wikipedia, and humanity in general would be better served by improving articles on ideas Unununium touches: orthogonal persistence, programming systems, user interface. If there is a Unununium page, it probably belongs more in some "never implemented ideas" section than "software".

That said, as shown by the current development pace of Unununium, I don't exactly have time to make these edits; I hardly have time to maintain unununium.org. Bitglue 16:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_11&oldid=1234127496"