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

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

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

• speedy delete, not notable (I'm the "speedy tagger")
• Delete unless somebody local can come and add some context. Guy 10:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Founder of a college (Croatian Technical Academy of Technical Sciences.) --Ruby 14:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ruby. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be notable, if this is the same person (we need someone who can translate Croation [1] Avi 16:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speak Croatian. That's an article about him. Only problem is I never heard of that Academy, and this guy (and I'm technology student). But, then again, I'm not the one to judge one's notability. --Dijxtra 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ruby - it is always better to err on the side of caution. If we discover at a later date that the source information is bogus, we can always renominate.
• Comment: regardless of decision his name is Juraj Božičević. Btw, no Google.Scholar hit. Pavel Vozenilek 20:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Not a speedy; not even a delete. Marginally notable acadmeic. Change his name, too. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I added a verify tag & living people cat -- doesn't mean I vote to keep it, but at least whoever is watchig over the living people (in a WP, not a religious sense) can deal with it. Carlossuarez46 20:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete as non-notable reference to fictional work. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 00:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete somebody's fanfiction. Enough said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Aww, how cute, the official website is hosted on Tripod. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 91 hits on the official site. Seems to be a vanity advertising piece. VirtualSteve 01:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Ruby, AL, and Steve. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 05:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. -- Greaser 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although the stories are pretty funny, in William Hung kind of way. --djrobgordon 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Guy 10:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. -- Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 10:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NG, Vancarlimospacecraft, Unencyclopædic, etc. Avi 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fancruft. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete as per Calton. -- Arnzy | Talk 01:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Tough call but I vote delete at this stage unless better verification on site leads me to conclude otherwise but for now it seems she is more known for her work as a labourer/painter in the art department of movies - and then only as a small bit part. VirtualSteve 01:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete -Is the younger sister of Melissa Joan Hart. IMDB page credits her with 3 titles. Is this notable enough for Wikipedia? I don't believe so. Can recreate page if she does more notable work. VegaDark 01:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In accordance with the Be Bold policy I turned this into a disambiguation page, the article formerly referred to the first Elizabeth Hart on the list. You can see that if you delete one Elizabeth Hart article there are three more potential Elizabeth Hart articles waiting in the wings. --Ruby 01:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'll defer to my esteemed colleague above who must know what she's doing in regard to the actress or actresses named Elizabeth Hart. -- JJay 01:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: someone's created Elizabeth Hart (1). enochlau (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What's cool about WP is you can back out anything. --Ruby 02:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of them appear notable to me. --Aaron 03:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as film stars with IMDB profile are notable. --Terence Ong 05:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. All of her IMDb credits are in projects starring her sister Melissa Joan Hart. As a second choice, redirect to Melissa Joan Hart. I see that the article has been restructured since the AfD vote began, so as a third choice, revert back to limiting the article to Melissa Joan's sister Elizabeth Hart, because the other three actresses named Elizabeth Hart are even less notable. --Metropolitan90 05:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete minor bit player, and there are not, I think, four of them, it's just that she is not notable so has been added multiple times to IMDB - that's how it looks to me anyway. There are probably two of them, neither actually a major player. Guy 10:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Terence Ong. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --MacRusgail 17:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disambig pages often have live links - from what I've seen, this page has 3 dead links. The only link is to a non-notable bit part actress page. Non notable. --Jay(Reply) 00:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Anyone can get an imdb profile these days [2] - Hahnchen 11:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Nothing wrong with red links, as long as they are notable. But none of these appear to be particularly accomplished individuals. Probably also need to check Elizabeth Hart (1) as well, which looks to be spawned from this page. — RJH 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely non-notable rydia 04:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with impunity. Ban without reserve. gren グレン 04:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, extremely minor actress whose only real claim to fame is that she has a famous relative. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Really nn --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 01:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as A1 or A7. --Aaron 01:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. VirtualSteve 01:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Under-appreciated just abnout covers it: in fact I don't appreciate it at all. Guy 10:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Ruby 14:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 16:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete. This has been transwikied word-for-word to Wiktionary:concept of money. Per WP:TL 1.1, the next step is to vote to delete via this AfD, and the closing admin should replace the page with the following boilerplate text: ''The contents of this page and the page's history have been moved to [[interwiki:Transwiki:Article Name]] via the [[m:transwiki|transwiki]] system, all future edits should go there.'' ~~~~ I concur. --Aaron 01:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Changing rationale for my vote per removal of Wiktionary article: Delete as failing WP:V. --Aaron 01:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The wiktionary entry appears to be a copyvio of the wikipedia article. Kappa 01:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh? -- Jonel | Speak 02:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe the GFDL requires the edit history to be preserved. Kappa 02:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. See wikt:Talk:concept of money. -- Jonel | Speak 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, I don't believe concept of money to have a distinct meaning from the sum of its parts. Will change my mind if evidence to the contrary can be produced. The wiktionary entry should go too. Kappa 02:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I concur with Kappa on this article's place or lack thereof on Wikipedia. -- Jonel | Speak 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in as much as I understand the technicalities here. Guy 10:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It just says there is such a thing as a concept of money but doesn't tell us what it is --Ruby 14:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's been transwikied Avi 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then redirect to Money which does and should contain a discussion of the theoretical basis of money. That's what this article would have eventually come to contain, so its best to redirect to prevent this from being created in the wrong place in the future. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It appears the wikitionary article disappeared. --AySz88^-^ 22:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary deletion log -- Jonel | Speak 22:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • wikt:Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#concept_of_money (a well-deleted GFDL-compliant article ;) btw, now that Wiktionary has deleted, I agree with Savidan's redirect rather than standard Transwiki boilerplate.) -- Jonel | Speak 00:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect - Cuñado - Talk 00:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. I agree that a discussion of the theoretical issues with the standard definition of money (i.e., its function as a unit of account and the modeling shortcomings therein) would be best suited as a paragraph or so in the money article. (Maybe I'll even take a crack at it someday...) --Kinu ^t/_c 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Keep. See talk page. Thunderbrand 02:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What Thunderbrand said, one of the links does confirm an arcade Star Fox game was being made. At the worst, the title should be changed to "Star Fox (arcade)" since I have seen no proof that "Star Fox AX" was an official name for the game. -- VederJuda 02:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article on something that never happened. Guy 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No vaporware articles --Ruby 14:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are no vaporware articles, then why is there an Indrema Phantom article? -- VederJuda 14:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Because I'm a busy girl and there's only so many hours in a day. --Ruby 16:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as prediction. BrianGCrawfordMA 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per VederJuda. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Guy Avi 16:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: We have articles for movies, games, and books which are announced. Are we just going to delete the ones for things that never happen? Most nintendo games that got to the stage of being announced are notable. Article contains interesting information, at least in my opinion. Star Fox 2, also unreleased, is also notable. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That is argument by assertion. How can something which does not exist be notable? Guy 22:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Planet X and Global cooling are now generally agreed to have not materialized, yet both are notable, so that's "How ... something which does not exist [can] be notable". If it was notable in anticipation, it's still notable in causing the notable anticipation. --AySz88^-^ 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable Ncsaint 23:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if renamed. Doesn't appear to be a hoax. We have many articles on unreleased games. I'm kind of teetering on whether this will ever get enough verifiable material, but I say we let this live and if the article won't grow much it can be then be merged. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with the important words being "announced but never released." --Jay(Reply) 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was a real product in development and is important to the Star Fox series. This project should also be mentioned in the Triforce (arcade system board) article, I'm a little surprised it isn't yet. --Pagrashtak 04:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is anyone who is not a fan of the star fox series in favor of keeping this article? Ncsaint 22:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am a gigantic fan of the Star Fox series, but there is honestly no good proof that this game ever existed. The text of the entry is just generic stuff about the Triforce project. This game was, at best, thought about momentarily by Nintendo. It never got started; it is nowhere near Star Fox 2, and I remain convinced that it never existed. It should not be listed in the Triforce article either, because there is only one sentence anywhere on the entire internet to support its existence, and it was probably just a misunderstanding about Star Fox Assault (formerly Armada) for the GameCube.SnowflakePillow 04:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This IGN article cited seems to spring from a misunderstanding. Namco got the rights to Star Fox, but not for an arcade game. I can concede that perhaps the Star Fox Assault article could use a tiny footnote saying it may have begun as an arcade game on triforce hardware, but the name "Star Fox AX" certainly has no basis. Most of this article is mere summary discussing Triforce hardware, and there is only one sentence of "proof" from a conjecturing IGN article. There are a bunch more articles, but all that I found cited the IGN article as their basis for their outlandish extrapolations. I move that this article become a tiny footnote in Star Fox Assault so that true Star Fox fans like myself aren't worried that they somehow missed a game. Understand that my dislike for this article doesn't come from the fact that the game was never released; the problem is that unlike Star Fox 2 we have absolutely no information about it, so it just wastes space on Wikipedia. SnowflakePillow 04:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as crystal-ballism, vapourware, non-notable. Take your pick. Ifnord 16:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Comment: with 11,400 google hits ^[3], it's not even in the running for that status. Kappa 01:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With probably at least two other spellings with equivalent numbers of hits, I'd wager. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rewrite This actually is attributable to Jay and Silent Bob, so there is actually a smidge of truth to this, but the article is factually incorrect. (According to an interview with Kevin Smith it is essentially a way of saying something like "Nah, just kidding" without actually saying it.) I could also go along with a merge with Jay and Silent Bob. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 01:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually, there is already a mention of this in the Etymology of Jay's Vocabulary section of the Jay and Silent Bob article, so I'll change to a full delete. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 02:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So next time someone types in "Snootchie bootchies" we should invite them to create a new article for us? Kappa 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jay and Silent Bob per scribbles. Kappa 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jay and Silent Bob given that it is a phrase used in the movies. It certainly doesn't warrant a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologistic, indiscriminate and barely notable. It's not spelled correctly either. -- Krash (Talk) 04:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jay and Silent Bob per Capitalistroadster: notable enough for a redirect but it doesn't need a main article (and certainly not this one). –Sommers ^(Talk) 07:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jay and Silent Bob. Notable catchphrase, but unlikely to be able to sustain its own article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Redirected to Jay_and_Silent_Bob. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jay and Silent Bob Noochies.--Isotope23 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Transwiki to Wikibooks:Bartending:Cocktails (shaken). --Aaron 02:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to keep but verify/cleanup. Drink recipes are apparently acceptable on WP, and Wikibooks:Bartending is a giant mess and there's already a French 75 recipe there anyway. However, I can't help but notice that the Wikipedia recipe and Wikibooks recipe have wildly conflicting lists of ingredients and instructions, so we need to figure out whether or not our version meets WP:V. --Aaron 02:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Weak keep. Drink stub. Context and importance are currently weak. -- Krash (Talk) 05:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GeAm9111 --Ruby 14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I'd rather have no recipies in the encyclopedia and all in the cookbook, but that is a pipe dream, I gather Avi 16:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Speedy delete - Recreated article in apparent attempt to bypass the AfD process. Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion. —ERcheck @ 03:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per {{db-club}}. -- Krash (Talk) 04:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per all above if possible; delete otherwise per all above, and as a WP:POINT violation since it is likely created as a response to the previous AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, vanity. Guy 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete per nom. Jaxal1 02:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN gamecruft. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Irrelevant Splette 10:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article about a place in a game --Ruby 14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NG, Vancarlimospacecraft, Unencyclopædic Avi 16:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NN. Ardenn 23:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 04:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Redirect to Afro-Caribbean. (Vote change Srleffler 01:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC).)[reply]
• Delete could be more in the future but there is no encyclopedic content here as of now. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You wouldn't delete African-American would you? --Ruby 14:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • African-American has content.--Srleffler 17:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ruby. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to African reggae, which is probably what anyone who might end up on this page was looking for. ergot 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Afro-Caribbean. Guy 22:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Afro-Caribbean. Doesn't stand as an article on its own. --Jay(Reply) 00:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Speedy Keep The article, itself, links to an article on his appointment. As such, it is verifiable. Unless there are other issues to warrant an AfD (such as a notability), I think this nomination was hasty (though the prod really should have had a comment). --Karnesky 13:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Karnesky --Ruby 14:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Karnesky. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep claim eminently verifiable Avi 16:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in the absence of any obvious reason to delete. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Comment I'm tired of getting burned by voting to delete athlete articles, someone else can stick their neck out on this one --Ruby 02:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retracted per precedence set by country articles for the 2004 Summer Olympics and 2006 Winter Olympics joturner 02:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Keep, notable body part, per the comment in my edit summary. Kappa 02:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might also help if you read the edit history before you AFD things. Kappa 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs work but otherwise this is a keeper. VirtualSteve 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but definitely needs expansion. Thatcher131 04:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Connecting tubule (or connecting duct, as we call it here in the United States) is a small part of the exquisitely intricate and almost completely understood nephron. Although this article is a stub, there is a great deal to say about the role of this particular part of the nephron in the normal production of urine. Agree with above that the current article is not WP:PERFECT as is and could stand improvement. -ikkyu2 (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand as a notable body part as per Ikkyu2. Capitalistroadster 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable body part. --Terence Ong 12:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete While notable, WP:WINAD & this is nothing more than a dict. def. right now. --Karnesky 13:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Anatomy article --Ruby 14:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable topic. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless this is expanded, it is a dicdef which already exists in Wiktionary Avi 16:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - User withdrew and article will be expanded
• Keep as Kappa for one is evidently intending further work on it. Guy 22:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to collecting duct system. The anatomy and function of the system's components overlap considerably, so they should be discussed in the context of one another. --David Iberri (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This idea has some merit. I could support it. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as above. Apologies if this vote is obselete - someone approached me to add my view due to my involvement in the preclinical medical project. PhatRita 16:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Merge although there may not be much to merge - this looks like a legitimate error and second editor should be informed to merge. VirtualSteve 03:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Proclamation of Neutrality. I would almost suggest that Neutrality Proclamation is more common. It would also be good if both versions were referenced and the article was longer. It is certainly a notable topic in American history. Capitalistroadster 05:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above --Ruby 14:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Capitalistroadster. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but I think Proclamation of Neutrality ought to be merged into Neutrality Proclamation as the latter is more common usage.—thames 20:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per all. Ardenn 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete per nom. --Aaron 02:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.pschemp | talk 07:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 12:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Ruby 14:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 16:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 20:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanispamcruftisement. Guy 22:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete per above. JoshuaZ 03:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Treznor 03:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity at best - certainly not notable. VirtualSteve 03:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost speedy-able. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: A7 and tagged as such since I really don't see an assertion of notability in that one sentence. Would be a delete regardless, of course. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete per above. JoshuaZ 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. From the manifesto: "It happened to me one chilly night in September, 1979. Approximately three or four o’clock in the morn, Monday, September 24. I was high on acid and in the process of writing one of the most important and poignant scenes in my first novel." I think that says it all, don't you? Wikipedia is not for things you made up while tripping one day. rodii 03:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jaxal1 04:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although I'm sure it made... an infinite amount of sense at the time. I'm mostly curious about "applied infinitology". -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 12:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all three essays --Ruby 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Toss them all Avi 16:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rodii's extension of WP:NFT Guy 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above DaGizza^{Chat ©} 07:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Update. When I checked earlier this evening Wiktionary did, in fact, have an entry for community ownership. This entry does appear to have been deleted. Therefore my nomination as stated above is no longer valid. However, I will nominate on the grounds that this is a dictdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. For now I am remaining neutral on the subject. I would like to see if the article can be expanded to something besides the dictdef that it currently is. James084 03:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, encylopedic concept which wiktionary does not, and should not, have an entry for. Kappa 03:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand, as this certainly is a concept that deserves to be more than the dicdef it currently is. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Somewhat beyond a dicdef, if you find your nomination is no longer applicable there's much honor in withdrawing rather than hunkering down and plowing ahead --Ruby 14:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruby. I didn't say I didn't think my nomination was inapplicable. I think it is still a dicdef. I said the original reason for nomination was invalid. James084 14:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kappa. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep needs serious work Avi 16:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. PJM 04:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Keep, was missing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot/C4, no point tearing it up. Also has an entry at pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term Kappa 03:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand: per Kappa. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• More than a dicdef, potentially. Keep and expand'. --Calton | Talk 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand JoshuaZ 06:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kappa. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just qualifies as a stub --Ruby 14:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. A valid topic; a stub that begins at the beginning. Smerdis of Tlön 15:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and expand A valid topic. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs serious work, but potential is there (cryptography stuff) Avi 16:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The problem is the such stubs remain stubs for long time. For red link someone may be more motivated to create full article. Pavel Vozenilek 20:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've often heard people speculate about redlinks motivating creation but there really doesn't seem to be any way to test this hypothesis. Users expand stubs all the time, too. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ditto, and with stubs even the newbies can participate. Carlossuarez46 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and I'm expanding it right now. Guy 22:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now more than a dic def. Still needs a cleanup & expansion, but overall a good improvement. --Karnesky 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am expanding the article. Discussing when code signing should be used, how it works, and how it ensures that linux distributions manage to "work" dispite the fact they are often spread over a large number of insecure mirrors I think deserves writing up. Mrjeff 23:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete as not meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Campus cartoons are not noteworthy. Although the line: "apathetic to a point of religiosity" is so syntax gold. -- Greaser 06:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Greaser --Ruby 14:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. - brenneman^{T}{L} 03:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

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

Delete — Fails WP:MUSIC, Not notable. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 20, 2006, 03:29 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom, fails WP:MUSIC --lightdarkness ^(talk) 05:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:MUSIC failure. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete VirtualSteve 08:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd hate to think of a future dab page for Pax Romana MLA 13:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one CD and plays the state fair circuit --Ruby 14:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CSD G4. [4] Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Ixfd64 07:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as a non-notable organization. --InShaneee 04:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm still amused by the members list, though... for example, click on Snuffles to see his (*ahem*) user page. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, that's funny... really funny... but Delete Georgewilliamherbert 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete probably Speedy - Nonsensical VirtualSteve 08:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn club --Ruby 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or speedy NN group, gaming clan. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as non-notable online gaming group / {{db-club}}, and thus tagged. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Glowimperial 20:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all gaming clans. Guy 22:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete. Thought I had left a comment, but I don't see it in the history - in any event, this is clearly nonsense, gets about 70 Google hits, including some Wiki mirrors (far too low for a real pop culture term). Borderline speedy. BD2412 T 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Unverifiable and no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 20, 2006, 04:18 (UTC)
• Delete: neologism. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable neologism. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V, WP:NEO, WP:NFT... take your pick. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Ruby 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete. Fan fiction, or so minor a character it slips completely under the radar of Star Wars nerd obsession. -- Saberwyn 04:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per nom. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 20, 2006, 04:27 (UTC)
• Delete' More starwars fancruft. JoshuaZ 06:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, whether it's a hoax or fancruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Ruby 14:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think this is fanfiction or anything like that, I think it's someone's Star Wars Galaxies MMORPG player character. Either way, it's a definite delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since it doesn't say where the character is from, it makes no claim of notability. And it's almost certainly fake.-LtNOWIS 03:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete per nom. Jaxal1 04:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination Blue520 05:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Magical delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. neither magical or delicious. pschemp | talk 07:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Goodbye! VirtualSteve 08:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn club --Ruby 14:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A forum guild on Gaia Online. Not even one of the biggest ones. Delete. -- Saberwyn 20:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete — Per nom. Oh no! It's Chonga for the Left Coast! — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 20, 2006, 04:25 (UTC)
• Lovely. A collection of shallow stereotypes mashed together to form a pseudo-encyclopedia article. Delete per nom. --Calton | Talk 05:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 06:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bill W., who took the words right out of my mouth. (Will we see the same level of sockpuppetry on this AfD too? Stay tuned!) --Kinu ^t/_c 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would infact vote to keep it and overhaul it, possibly myself, if any of the references referred to the subject matter in question. So, I vote delete in spite of the numerous pejorative terms that exist out there and are NPOV. -- Greaser 06:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment References added which discuss Marina stereotypes from SFWeekly and Guardian. Still very local to San Francisco.

• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-verifiable per nom, and comments by Ohnoitsjamie are on-target re difference between this and a term in wide use like 'yuppie'. --Lockley 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NPOV violation. This article seems more of a bitter rant than an encyclopaedic essay on the subject.  (aeropagitica)  07:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this rant becomes a socio-psychological phenomenon of standing it could be encyclopedic - but it is not even close to that now. VirtualSteve 08:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV with no significant verification that there really are such things as Marina girls --Ruby 14:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and enter now one of the inconsistencies of Wikipedia. Marina Girl strikes me as an insufficiently notable neologism because it's colloquial and unlikely to spread -- ie, it loses meaning away from the marina & SF. Also, I'm from SF, and have never heard it. That said, if this were an Internet colloqualism, we might elect to keep it, because terms on the net can be just as niche, but cross a broader strata of readers and users because of the noncentralized nature of such. This is something we'll have to figure out how to work with eventually. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as complete bollocks. Guy 22:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm pretty sure that this just got run through a previous AfD very recently (last week?), and got deleted (note that it's recreated in the last couple of days). I'm sure digging around can locate the ref. Georgewilliamherbert 23:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (Not a WP member, not author, not affiliated, no vested interest) Anecdotal : This is a very common term with my social circle (No, not Mission District! Not even SF.). Unless it's being included in travel guides though, it will lose relevance beyond the SF Bay Area. I don't see a huge difference between Marina Girl and Essex Girl wrt concept. Essex girl (looks like this is an expansion on Essex Girl - clearly one of these needs editing) is a specialization of Chav and Dumb blonde, as Marina Girl is a specialization of Yuppie. The Chronicle or Examiner wouldn't dare address this phenomenon by name - their readership levels are already dangerously low, and that would probably lose them 10% of their readers. More references would better the article, I agree. Please, visit the Marina. It's funny.

• I have a few links for consideration (for varifiability purposes) :

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

• KEEP - This explanation of Marina Girl holds true not just for SF, but any area near the water including westside areas of Los Angeles (Santa Monica, Venice, Manhattan and Hermosa Beach, Orange County in general) and San Diego. The writer of this article is so accurate it's scary. I wager that most of the people who want this removed is because it hits too close to the truth....and they can't handle the truth...or laugh at life.

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

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

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

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

ATTENTION! If you think people came to this page because a friend asked them to do so, or because they saw a message on an online forum asking them to do so, please note that this is not the case. Posting notices about ballot stuffing is presumptuous. If you find credible evidence of ballot stuffing, by all means please share.

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

• Delete From listening to the mp3, seems to be Italy's (non-notable) answer to Wesley Willis.OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. fungi hunter? seem extrememly local. nn. pschemp | talk 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A fungi hunter that has mushroomed - wow if these editors put the same effort into encyclopedic articles - oh what colour would be added. But for now well this article printed would make good compost. VirtualSteve 08:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although this name has 19K google hits at first glance, 18900 of them disappear if you -site:barganews.com. Thus, notability, if any, is very local. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Adrian --Ruby 14:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Adrian's fun Google results. Notability is, shall we say, dubious. Lord Bob 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete Short sightedness to Outsider Art is a common position that many easily take without starting to understand the first principle concept of its foundation. Far from non/notable Silvano has international acclaim from leading Jazz composers. Wikipedia is about knowledge of all for all. Not knowledge fascim by a few close minds dictating content control in order to not understand. Just because YOU don't like or understand his music does not mean others will. Keep this article. --RAW 08:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: to User:Rawcut -- I'm open to hearing about verifiable evidence of international acclaim that I might have missed. If you have it, please provide it -- don't just assert that it exists. While we all like to assume good faith, we get people telling us how wrong we are on a regular enough basis that it's impossible to just take it at face value and say "Oh, this guy thinks he's notable? Kept!" We'd never delete anything at that rate. So, I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, but please cite sources if they exist. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unable to verify any claim to notability. Derek from the Frog and Frigate had a successful career based on singing in bars, but he's not notable either. Guy 23:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete Silvano Togneri is a musician of great distinction whose adroitness is held in high regard in the international music world. I am not aware of the measuring tools used to determine notability, but I was saddened to see that on Wikipedia, a site I hold in high regard, Togneri's article might be destined for deletion. "Those works created from solitude and from pure and authentic creative impulses - where the worries of competition, acclaim and social promotion do not interfere - are, because of these very facts, more precious than the productions of professions." - Jean Dubuffet. Validusername 23:58, 20 February 2006

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

• Do Not Delete I have downloaded a few of his songs and have even met someone who’s brother has actually seen him live. Yes, he is very outsider but the net is currently buzzing with thousands of remixes of his songs. It has become a sort of internet remix craze. Some of the better mixes have been played in a nightclub in Liverpool. We may end up with one of the remixes being quoted in wiki but not the original!!--Deety 08:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete See Talk:SILVANO_TOGNERI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barganews (talk • contribs)
• Do Not Delete Wikipedia is about information which is not main stream. The suggestions to delete this entry are on the grounds of taste only. To also suggest deletion of this entry on the grounds of someone's mental ability would also been seen as illegal in many countries. I live in Sofia Bulgaria but I am aware of Silvano Togneri as my brother is a travelling muscian who has played Barga Jazz festival and informed of the wonderful outsider art which is promoted in the Tuscan town of Barga. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.8.60.62 (talk • contribs) .

Comment Wikipedia is based on established notability, which this subject lacks. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 16:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete as per nom. James084 04:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Obvious ad for her website Fan1967 05:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. Not a speedy as there are claims to notability. Capitalistroadster 05:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteper nom.pschemp | talk 06:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes well - this artice deserved to be busted Delete. VirtualSteve 08:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. Monicasdude 14:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Capitalistroadster --Ruby 14:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yuk. I can't believe they made me click that link. Why do people do that to themselves? Guy 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BAH! I clicked on that link too... Gawd... Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 04:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scary thing is the text that says she's planning additional implants to make them larger. Uggghh. Fan1967 15:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. Has potential to become notable in the genre (see Ewa Sonnet) but too early in the game; can always be recreated if she starts making videos or appearing in more magazines. That comment about the additional implants is probably just nonsense since it's unsourced. 23skidoo 15:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the comment about the additional implants is from her own website. Also from her website, it appears her main occupation is, uhh, how to put this, personal appointments. Of all the things Wiki is not, you'd have to include ads for personal services. Fan1967 16:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. really trivial. pschemp | talk 06:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. I am planning to expand this beyond what belongs in the Serenity article. The Wookieepedian 09:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Googling "R. Tam sessions" brings up 1,250,000 results.[8]The Wookieepedian 10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: when googling you need to use quotes or you get tons of unrelated hits. With quotes ~600 hits.
• Keep, fairly notable aspect of the unique Serenity marketing campaign. Actually has lots of room for expansion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I suggest a new strategy: Let The Wookiepedian Win. --Ruby 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm also saying keep it, since I came by more or less at random and would've probably missed it on the main Firefly page. Need expansion/completion thou. --rotane 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it appears to be independently notable. --Karnesky 23:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Just spent the past 30 minutes reading up on this from the links. Deserves it's on page. --Wynler | Talk 17:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, assuming completion. -b 06:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though I'd like to see some WP-reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I LIKE the idea of letting the Wookiepedian win. — CJewell (talk to me) 20:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Wookiepedian. --Vanis314 2:52 25 Feburary 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as it is a rather notable part of the Firefly machine, as well as a little piece of work onto itself. --Bacteria 19:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Speedy Delete - CSD G4, recreation of deleted material. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fun 100 easily fits into the confines of WP:Music. They are on the two Canadian national college charts (links are in the article). They have gone on two Canadian tours. They have been featured in music media, again, sources are named and linked to. They placed second in the biggest music competition in Vancouver, Shindig. Only one of those criteria must be met for a subject to be eligible for an article. How is this even an issue? This is not just the same information as before, more information has been added and sources cited. JonnyChance 05:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find that any of the sources satisfy WP:V or WP:RS. -- Krash (Talk) 05:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Speedy tag has been removed by myself -see the talk page. If a band is deleted and subsequently qualifies or claims qualification under WP:MUSIC, it is not eligible for G$ which only applies to articles which are substantially the same. They have made the college charts in Canada just below Franz Ferdinand and have completed two tours. They are notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep VirtualSteve 08:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I think I'll have to scrub my skin with lye after I say it. There is a lot of bandity in Wikipedia, and I have never heard a single good song on campus radio in my life, but they still cut it. Yes, they're notable. They're verifiable. I will now light myself on fire. Lord Bob 18:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, chart links: !earshot - Top 200 of Dec 2005, Top 200 of Nov 2005 Top 50 for week ending: Feb 7, 2006, Nov 8, 2005, Nov 29, 2005, etc.. (I wont bother listing the 40 others..) nkife 05:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Chart, Earshot and CBC Radio 3 are all sufficiently major music media to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. Not a band I've ever actually heard of, personally, but the sources all check out. Keep. Bearcat 06:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Merge and redirect to Robert Moog. This type of record does exist, and is mentioned in historical interviews with Robert Moog. Doubtful there is enough info for it to be its own article, thus the merge. pschemp | talk 05:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know there's a lot of vinyl with "Moog" in their titles. But there is no "Moog records" genre, thus making this original research. And why clutter Robert Moog's biography article with this stuff that has very little to do with him? -- Krash (Talk) 05:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into "Moog synth in culture" section of Robert Moog. Definitely not nonsense; I've heard of these records (though I'm not sure if it could be called a "genre.") OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the whole article needs to be merged into Robert Moog, but it's worthy of mention (a sentence of two) that the Moog inspired these types of albums for a short period of time. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 70's kitsch, like mood rings and pet rocks --Ruby 15:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kitch has never been a criterion for keeping an article. -- Krash (Talk) 15:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was a minor fad that didn't last very long. Any needed mention of it should go to Robert Moog. My own recollection is of a bunch of "Switched on" titles ("Switched on Bach," "Switched on Santa") that were in the record store remainder bins within a year or so. Fan1967 19:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Delete per Krash. Better off as a paragraph in the Moog article than a separate article. Fan1967 14:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but I'll change my vote if someone can verify that several professional music critics/papers have used this term to refer to the genre. — ciphergoth 21:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Moog Cookbook because anyone who can make Green Day's Basket Case sound like the St. Elsewhere theme song and uses a Speak & Spell as an instrument is OK in my book. Plus, it's conceivable that someone could come here looking for their discography and type Moog records.--Isotope23 21:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I interest you in this slightly used copy of Genetic Engineering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

Definitely not, but a redirect to Robert Moog seems sensible. — ciphergoth 00:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a redirect to Andy Moog. I'm sure he holds a few records for goaltending...--Isotope23 14:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, worthwhile content has already been merged. Someone can leave a redirect here to Robert Moog if they are so inclined.--Isotope23 14:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I can't definitely recall having heard the term before, but a quick Google found several references: [9] [10] [11] [12]... so it seems to me that it's the kind of thing someone might want to find out more about, and thus deserves an entry. --Woozle 01:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RS? -- Krash (Talk) 02:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even the Google hits for "Moog records" - which is surely a biased sample - yields pages which seem to use the term interchangeably with "Moog music", "Moog albums" and many other near-synonyms. From which I conclude that this exact term isn't widely used. Contrast with a term like "synthpop" which is far more widespread than any near variant. — ciphergoth 03:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is one of countless, tiny, fads. Such as popular songs played by orchestras, accordions (or other ethnic/niche instruments), classical songs with ocean sounds, etc, etc. Crap you see in the bargain bin. A mention in the Robert Moog article is all this really needs. --fataltourist 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect into "Moog synth in culture" section of Robert Moog. More noteworthy than most musical fads, disagreeing with Fataltourist. I would vote "keep" if there were sources more authoritative than those shown so far. Barno 19:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge and redirect per Barno --Mmeinhart 05:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete Pointless fancrap.Jaxal1 04:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax --Ruby 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I also shrunk that unbelievably annoying image. Chick Bowen 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you. Jaxal1
• Delete. definate hoax. pschemp | talk 05:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above and reprimand Aloy-Wan Kenobi for repeatedly removing the AfD tag. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. JoshuaZ 06:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Keep. Apparently this article is "a candidate for speedy deletion" because it may be "an article about a real person or group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject (CSD A7)". I don't know what that pseudolegalistic tripe is supposed to mean (and I don't much care), but Wikipedia cannot be only about things that "are important or significant", for two reasons: firstly, "importance or significance" is a subjective judgement which can't be legislated for in any sane system, and secondly if we still intend to create the greatest encyclopaedia there has ever been then we need articles about everything under the sun, and there are plenty of things under ther sun that aren't important or significant. But never mind that. The need for this article arises because several other articles link here, and the context of the links doesn't always make it clear what News Line actually is. The best way for a reader to find out what The News Line is, is to click on the link and read the stub. Also, this is a very remarkable publication. Not so much for what it says, but simply because it continues to come out, day after day and year after year. A teeny-tiny political sect produces a daily newspaper. A real one, with TV reviews and sports results and colour pictures and columnists and everything. How do they do it? Where does the money come from? Apparently, at one time there were two rival WRPs each producing its own rival daily News Line! It's a great subject for a wikipedia article. We need to know more! GrahamN 03:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, phrases like "does not assert the importance or significance of the subject" are the result of attempts to find a way to quickly get rid of things like high school clubs and bands - we get a lot of newbie articles about them. Kappa 04:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, daily newspaper. Kappa 05:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. exisiting, functioning paper. pschemp | talk 05:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. JoshuaZ 06:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Daily media publications are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. PJM 04:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete as unverifiable slang dicdef neologism. -- Krash (Talk) 04:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per nom. Neologism. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 20, 2006, 05:04 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. pretty clearly slang dicdef.pschemp | talk 05:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable neologism. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Chairman S. | Talk 07:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've seen a lot of dumb articles before but this is even dumberer --Ruby 15:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete - 27 google hits, one of them wikipedia, nothing showing notability. So more than one church uses this program? that doesn't make it notable. Article *does* read like an advertisement also. pschemp | talk 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. 27 google hits? I didn't know it was possible to get that few. JoshuaZ 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no Alexa rank for their website, and only five youth pastors, this is small potatoes --Ruby 15:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cruft. Guy 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed. Withdrawing nomination, will redirect. Chick Bowen 06:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to meet notability standards. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 2 google hits for search criteria " Chris Lynn" "seasonal quartet". nn. pschemp | talk 06:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unduly long, "disquieting" article. I'm "rueful" that it has to sit out a full AfD. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Ruby 15:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research. Guy 23:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete. per nom. pschemp | talk 06:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-referential, redundant with the top category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete part of a wikiproject which is already mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books -- Astrokey44|talk 12:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Ruby 15:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant per category ;-) Guy 23:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. *drew 13:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Well-meant effort by project participant to provide easy access at many levels...but ultimately unnecessary. Her Pegship 01:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• delete. nonnotable pseudoreligion. mikka (t) 06:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom TheRingess 06:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh God, not again. KILL IT! KILL IT NOW! --Calton | Talk 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. delete per nom. pschemp | talk 07:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G4 Recreation of deleted material. --Aaron 08:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Drat. You beat me to it. I was too busy applying the tag to list it here! Speedy. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: may not be suitable for speedy deletion. Talk:Universist movement says 'Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, on keeping the Universist Movement article on Wikipedia: "If it is indeed true that this was featured in the New York Times, Fox News, the BBC, then I would vote 'keep' on a VfD myself."' It now claims to have been featured in the LA Times. [13] --Henrygb 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, well their claims of being featured in the New York Times turned out to be bogus, so I'd take anything they said with a Costco-sized grain of salt. --Calton | Talk 11:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, com to think, what you post has nothing to do with Speedy criteria -- substantially the same material being re-created. If they want to argue that they're notable NOW, have 'em take it up with deletion review. --Calton | Talk 12:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are claims that this movement has been featured in significant media. As far as I can tell, these claims have not been verified so I vote to Delete unless verifiable evidence is produced. Capitalistroadster 11:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete Per nom, perfected stated. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 07:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Blatant POV fork. Note that the author, User:Avianluvr22, is also using the original article (which apparently he created) to suit his own agenda. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that note, I'll say that my vote extends to Lloyd Lake (San Francisco) if that gets lumped into this AfD... which it should, since it's essentially the same soapbox-type article, and would be easier to recreate from nothing if Lloyd Lake deserves an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV agenda pushing. pschemp | talk 07:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, and tagged as {{db-club}} with clarification "a flock is a kind of club, and nothing in CSD says the club members must be human ..." Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, POV. --Terence Ong 11:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not a forum for conservation advocacy --Ruby 15:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although I must say that the author's assertions that the birds have a "lackadaisical attitude" and "razor sharp wit" made me smile. It might not be encyclopedic, but at least it's interesting and a good read. Still delete though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the birds are clearly not forgotten. Guy 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NPOV. Stifle 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete. No doubt he's an excellent student, but getting high marks on exams (even getting very high marks on a number of exams and winning a notable student award) doesn't really make an individual notable in an encyclopedic sense. Really, I think an abbreviated biography of him should just be merged at Beazley Medal. Khoo seems on a track for great things in this life, but let's wait till he finishes university and then we can judge his accomplishments in the real world.--Pharos 07:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pharos abakharev 07:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Needs to grow up. --Ghirla | talk 07:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable Splette 10:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "An article on a school student" - he has finished school and is at university. --Hamedog^Talk|@ 10:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. --Terence Ong 11:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only needs a mention at Beazley Medal -- Astrokey44|talk 12:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agnte 13:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only notable for high-school achievements, and as Hamedog says, he's all grown up now --Ruby 15:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only finished school in November 2005. Not quite all grown up yet - not at legal age to vote.--Hamedog^Talk|@ 08:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Uni student who did well at school. However, doesn't meet WP:BIO as yet. Capitalistroadster 18:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Smart kid. He'll do well one day. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 04:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Khoo was an excellent student no doubt but he hasnt really acheived anything in the real world. Even if you do have excellent grades and do well in exams it doesnt mean you will be a success in the future. I disagree with every ones opinion of him. All the outstanding men and woman in the current world have their succeses based on luck and not acedemics... although it is helpful it will be chance and luck that will bring success. Dont worry the people who are not bright or acedemically inclined, you still have the same oppitunitys as Adrian Khoo. By the way HE MIGHT DO WELL. NOT WILL........ Summited by MMS
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 19:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
• Delete. --Roisterer 08:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 13:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 10:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn bio, and don't put "AKA" in the title of articles --Ruby 15:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but don't bite Asingleton-green for not using our naming conventions, it's their first attempt at a new article. Leithp 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The difference between this guy and Schappelle Corby is that is plenty of verifiable information about her and none about this guy. I tried to add him to the list of Australia related articles but the unorthodox naming defeated my attempt. Delete. Capitalistroadster 17:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy if wanted, pending further work. Right now it's hard to verify any claim of notability. Guy 23:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please leave this up. It's very interesting and focuses on a generation that merits recording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.44.44.11 (talk • contribs)
• Delete or userfy, per Guy. Stifle 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete as unverifiable mix of fact and fiction. But I can be convinced to change my vote by a bit of WP:V — the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This is a peculiar one. The SCIFI novella seems genuine. Googling for Sandaliotis Ichnusa gives valid results. But most of the rest of the article can't be found on google. I'm thinking 25% fact, 75% hoax. The last two sections sort of give it away though... Weregerbil 11:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax per last paragraph --Ruby 15:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 20:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ravedave 01:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete - everyone except for Hunter Ellis and clean up Hunter Ellis. As for everyone else, the same reasons for the other listed survivor contestants in this nomination apply here. Not enough information on most of them, and The rest are not really notable as articles. Information about those the non-notable contestants should only belong in their respective contestant pages, not in wikipedia - Arnzy 08:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (Amended vote:-- Arnzy | Talk 01:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)).[reply]
• Delete - non notable Tawker 08:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or keep, fictional characters viewed by a large audience. Kappa 11:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as nn. --Aaron 08:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all nn-bio. --Terence Ong 09:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all while there are several paragraphs for most of these, almost all the info is non-notable stuff like "Currently single, she lives with her cat, Abbi, while her other three cats, Bart, Sasha and Meow, and her twin Shih Tzu dogs, Till and Fieval, live with her parents." [14] -- Astrokey44|talk 12:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vote em all off the island --Ruby 15:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non notable. -- Krash (Talk) 18:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Saberwyn 20:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup Hunter Ellis, no vote on Sarah Jones, delete all all others, biographies of insufficiently notable people, no hope of encyclopedic expansion. Barno 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (changed vote Barno 14:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep Jones and Ellis, who are independently notable (for posing in Playboy (magazine) and hosting shows on The History Channel, repsectively). Merge the others to the relevant season of the show. -Colin Kimbrell 05:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Possible Copyvio on Kimmi Kappenberg's article as it seems to be cut and pasted from her official contestant page. -- Arnzy | Talk 11:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete - Forum-cruft. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 07:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense. --Terence Ong 09:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is IDM but I never heard of ISM and I'm into e-music --Ruby 15:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a real genre. Really real. Kungpowbetty 14:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)preceding comment by User:130.157.62.76 talk contribs

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

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

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

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

• Delete - Blatant spamcruft. -- Arnzy | Talk 08:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom pschemp | talk 09:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ad. --Terence Ong 09:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Ruby 15:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 23:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for god's sake. this page is sort of incomprehensible. perhaps a description of the product or a photograph might help, but i doubt it. good for a laugh, though. Asarkees 00:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete Interesting idea. How many guys use Viagra & have a problem taking it on a date. I know I've experienced this. If the user gets rid of the spam ie: URL / Then why not allow it. It's pop culture. After all we allow MulletFan, etc., which are commercial entities.
• Don't Delete Ha! What an idea. I need one of these. I copied the photo & gave it to my jeweler. I hope he can make me one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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