Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

Detailed description of the DNA of Thomas Jefferson and his descendents. The issues regarding his fathering children with a slave seem to pretty well-covered and, in any case, I don't see how this helps anything. Famous people's DNA is not notable; this controversy is notable, and is already well-covered elsewhere -- if more coverage were needed, there should be an article specifically about the controversy, not giving very minor details about how Jefferson DNA was recovered and what sort of DNA it was. Tuf-Kat 20:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The
  Sally Hemmings page discusses the controversy in depth. There is no need to have the DNA sequences listed in Wikipedia. --Thunk 20:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Or, redirect to Jefferson or Sally HemingsJporcaro 21:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete. The actual sequences and how the haplotypes impacted the controversy are interesting to those interested in genetic genealogy. This was a prominent case and a prominent example that helped to spwan an entire industry.Sandwich Eater 21:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it or merge it with Hemmings. I agree with Sandwich Eater that the actual haplotypes and how the Nature article made it's case is a lot more interesting than "some scientists said X" for those interested in genetic genealogy and this issue. Brockmanah 21:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redirect Why is everyone on the wiki so delete happy? --DragonWR12LB 21:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thunk. -- Krash (Talk) 22:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as relevant. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Most of the information would be more relevant to a genetics journal. Green Giant 23:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The information in the article is technical, but the topic is highly notable. BrianGCrawfordMA 00:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopedic as it is too specialist.
  Thatcher131 00:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Article's not
  WP:PERFECT, needs improvement; that's not in question. Subject is encyclopedic and the article in no way appears to be a POV fork; it's also much more detailed than the discussion of the same topic at Sally Hemings. The historical interest of the information and its interpretation isn't in question. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep or merge to Hemings article; seems harmless?
  tips) 01:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep highly notable. JoshuaZ 03:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to a clearer title, such as DNA Testing of Thomas Jefferson. It should be kept, but not under the current name, since there's more than just data in the article, and the name "Jefferson" is ambiguous. -Colin Kimbrell 17:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable, verifiable article; detailed descriptions of notable topics should be encouraged, not deleted. WP has room for both breadth and depth of topics. Turnstep 14:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate from Hemings article, readers of which may be presented with a link to the DNA story or just feel content that someone else has looked at all the sequences. Carlossuarez46 02:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too specialized for the Wikipedia. --CTSWyneken 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article.

This is a one-item list with no clear scope for expansion. I suppose it's meant to be a list of articles about DNA controversies regarding famous people? Anyway, I don't think it's presence in Wikipedia is useful. Tuf-Kat 19:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as listcruft. Paul Carpenter 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Jporcaro 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it. Give it a chance to grow. There are also efforts underway to sequence Ben Franklin, et al. The results are sure to be interesting and a list is a convenient way to organize the data from the genetic genealogy page. Sandwich Eater 22:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Paul. -- Krash (Talk) 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sandwich Eater. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Are we really going to have an entire article devoted to Franklin's DNA? Pagrashtak 23:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it deals with an article of a technical complexity better suited to genetics journals. Green Giant 00:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is not too technical if given a proper introduction, and is of encyclopedic interest. -- Reinyday, 01:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sandwich Eater. JoshuaZ 03:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list of ONE is not a list. When you have an actual list, make a list. MiracleMat 05:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see the need for a list with one item, which is already covered better in a standalone article. If someone wants to create an article on celebrity DNA testing, that'd be fine, though. -Colin Kimbrell 17:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I see this as an abuse of the deletion system. "Short list" is not a criterion for deletion. This article is topical and easily expandable with the information from Famous DNA for example. I will expand it as time permits, but even if I didn't, it's current length does not violate NPOV, verifiability, nor the ban on original research. -- Reinyday, 21:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: A list with three or four items is a short list. A list with one item is a fork, which should be merged or deleted. Since all relevant content is already present in the
  Jefferson DNA Data article and the search string is implausible, I went with delete instead of mege/redirect. If you plan to expand it, that's fine, but in the future it'd be better to keep things like this as a user subpage or a text file on your local machine until they're ready for prime time. -Colin Kimbrell 03:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, verifiability is in question, and it appears to be a list set up solely for the purpose of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 11:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Note: Verifiability is not in question, the Nature article just uses an older allele nomenclature. The Allele's listed are using the current, up-to-date system. Sandwich Eater 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verifiability commenter does not understand nomenclature issue. Single item list comments are already out of date, as there are 2 items and more will arrive. I agree with the poster who mentioned this as a possible abuse of the deletion system and an overzelous application of the word "cruft" (though cruft is a cool word).New Guy In Town 01:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name one way this is an "abuse of the deletion system"? Tuf-Kat 06:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Neither Genghis Khan's DNA, nor that of any verifiable direct male-line descendant, is available for testing, so any details of his haplotype are pure speculation.
  siafu 02:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per New guy in town. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What's next, List of Notable Persons' favorite colors? Sure, this is interesting information, but it's not notable. I swear, Jimbo, or somebody, is going to need to start up Wikilists. The article about Thomas Jefferson's DNA, at least there's a story or some research going on about it, but this? This isn't an "encyclopedia article about famous people's DNA", it's just, "famous people's DNA". Maybe we could Wikibooks this? CrypticBacon 13:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.—♦♦

Contabilitate

Untranslated for two weeks at

Appears to be Romanian. I have no idea what it is saying. CrypticBacon

• It's a page about accounting in Romania. How can I translate it in English? Also how can I mark it as a stub? --Robert 09:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 09:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of it is a copyvio from here: [1]. The first few sentences could be integrated in some article about Romania -Economy of Romania perhaps? Dunemaire 12:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as A8: blatant copyright infringement per Dunemaire's link. Plus of course the Two Week Rule. --
  Aaron 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete. As untranslated per 2 week rule & as A8 Copy/vio--Dakota ~ ° 03:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• CSD A8 per above. --Zsinj^Talk 03:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. Bobby1011 03:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It can't be untranslated for two weeks and be speedy deleted under CSD/A8. One or the other, not both. (CSD/A8 is in play only during the first 48 hours of the existence of an article) . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedyu delete as A8. --
  e Ong 06:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as untranslated for over 2 weeks. Thanks again Adrian. Bobby1011 06:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pending translation for 2 weeks. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete This is the English wikipedia, isn't it ? Jcam 17:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as copyvio. -- Krash (Talk) 22:30, 26 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.—♦♦

Baby Blue (musician)

Not notable, has been flagged for cleanup since last month with little or no interest. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 00:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nomination. Spaully 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given that the article's creator is one
  Aaron 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as vanity and lacking interest. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Look out the saints are comin' through, And it's all over now, Baby Blue." [2]. Delete until she meets our
  music notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 02:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. --Zsinj^Talk 03:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to be a vanity article. Also, Google turns up few hits so not very notable. --MatthewUND^(talk) 09:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Capitalistroadster. --Cymsdale 09:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, but this would have been a great article for {{
  prod}}. · rodii · 18:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 22:32, 26 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.—♦♦

Human Brain Evolution and Sexual Lying

Seems to be an essay of some sort, and Wikipedia does not seem to be the appropriate forum for its content at the moment. Seems to be introducing original terminology to the field. HappyCamper 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essay and IMHO low quality one. Pavel Vozenilek 01:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research, poor quality, and the article content appears to have little to do with the title. Heycos 01:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT --Zsinj^Talk 03:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Bobby1011 03:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Original research, not at all encyclopedic. dbtfz^talk 06:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. What a dumb essay.
  Grandmasterka 06:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. --MatthewUND^(talk) 09:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. --Cymsdale 09:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original Research TigerShark 14:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as copyvio of this.
  ergot 21:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as copyvio noted above and
  original research violation.  (aeropagitica)  22:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete - I've added {{copyvio}} and listed it on copyright violations page. Camillus (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOR. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:28, 27 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. (2k/9d/2ip)

PuntoCL

I generally stay away from video game articles, so I don't know precedents well. However, this was originally prod'ed, prod removed. Ranked #18 at a gaming competition and having less than 30 players under its belt hardly seems notably to me. Delete _└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 00:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. VGclancruft.--み使い Mitsukai 02:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vani(ty)spamcruftisement. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. --Zsinj^Talk 03:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as non-notable club. Bobby1011 03:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clancruft. Almost 30 players, huh? --Kinu ^t/_c 04:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  non-notable clan. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26
  05:03Z
• Delete as nn vanity. --Cymsdale 09:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Kept when they were ranked 18 during the Cyberathlete Professional League there were 64 teams competing and they were in a ranking with more than 150 teams.
• Kept The team is very known at the players community and are a very notable team at the Latin American scene, just look their awards...

• Comment Both of the above keep "votes" were created during one edit by an IP. Michael Ralston 19:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn per above. Kuru ^talk 05:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Kept I am the creator of this article, and I can tell you that Punto CL is a very notable team, first off the team has been featured at the National Television at Chile exactly 5 times (here is one of them: ftp://ftp.lan-z.net/videos/EstamosConectadosLatinCupChileyPerú.WMV), and at CNN during a CPL event. Also, the team has been featured at "El Mercurio" (our most pretigious newspaper at Chile, just with that I say that they are known outside gaming, and also you can see them featured several times at the MFAVP CPL coverage, and last I must say that I have no relation with the team. You can ask the Catch-Gamer (ranked #10 worldwide) their about their skills or you can ask every single informed gamer at GotFrag, SoGamed, or any community abput them and I assure you that they will know them AVeRY! 00:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete random video game clan. This sort of information belongs on their own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle 11:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AVeRY. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoia MUD

Delete non-notable spamvertisement. dBed on 2/21 by Atarti2600tim (who has had admitted problems with the pages author), but doesn't satisfy a CSD criteria. PRODed by CDC shortly there-after, PROD was removed by page author without comment. Now it is here. --Karnesky 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because there more appropriate places to advertise a MUD like MUD Connector. Green Giant 01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising, not encyclopedic. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above. -Phorteetoo 01:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Zsinj^Talk 03:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Green Giant. Bobby1011 03:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is Wikipedia, not The Mud Connector. --Hetar 06:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. --Cymsdale 09:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertisment. There are better places to mention this MUD than in a WP article.  (aeropagitica)  23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, adcopy per above. Kuru ^talk 05:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep By the way I didn't remove your effin PROD. 151.201.12.16 14:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually you did in this [3] edit, and either forgot to log in when making this comment, or else forgot that you're playing the anon character and that it was the Young Zaphod character that created the article. CheckUser may have a huge backlog, but this makes it a little easier to show the admins which anon sock puppets are you; now I don't have to wait on CheckUser, I can just point out this anon responding to comments about YZ and referring to him as "I". Thanks for your help. Also thanks for not doing multiple votes in the same edit and things like that this time, like past votes. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for same reasons as other users. Purpose of article seems to be for promotion of his other articles. I mistakenly was looking at one of the other criteria lists; it indeed is appropriate to prod and afd, but not necessarily speedy. (Thanks, guys who fixed it) --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rob 01:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hill school

Contains one line that may be of importance to The Hill School and is otherwise worthless. ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 00:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just re-direct, why is Afd needed?? Georgia guy 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There doesn't seem to be anywhere in
  Aaron 01:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect, delist, now. Pavel Vozenilek 01:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article.

No opinion. Was incorrectly tagged with PROD twice CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Why is it incorrect? This is a blatant ad for a non-notable company.
  Grandmasterka 01:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: You're only supposed to add a {{
  Aaron 02:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The only thing I think is incorrect is that it should have went straight here in the first place. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 02:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as blatant advertisement. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a brilliant piece of historical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.148.37 (talk • contribs)
• Delete I am the one who reinstated the prod. I apologize for that. TheRingess 02:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising; can't find evidence that it meets
  WP:CORP regardless. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Keep. Having the correct name of the company helps. Definitely seems to meet
    WP:CORP now. Thanks to ERCheck for the rewrite and references. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete as per Grandmasterka. Bobby1011 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - the prod tag was removed by a vandal with a false edit summary "reverting vandalism." The deletion was not actually being contested - it was pure and simple vandalism.
  FCYTravis 06:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP. If the Ringess is for it, I'm against it, on principle — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonofHearts (talk • contribs)
• Delete as advert. --Cymsdale 09:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AbstainI'm removing my delete recommendation after the revisions made. --Cymsdale 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, renamed 'lululemon' and rewritten. This is actually a very notable brand at the yoga end of the athleticwear market, as per this Google News search. I will do the rewrite myself, later. - squibix(talk) 11:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ad. --
  e Ong 14:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per squibix's news results and 100k on a regular google search. I removed the advertising -- Astrokey44|talk 15:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per squibix. NickelShoe 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It has been recently featured in BusinessWeek (I added the reference to the article). Multiple Ghits, seems to be very popular, including being auctioned on e-bay. I've moved it to
  Lululemon. (The official company name is "lululemon athletica"). —ERcheck @ 17:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I've removed additional "advertising"; included more information about the company, growth, equity, etc. In December 2005, U.S. private equity firm invested $225 million - looks like company value is over US$600 million; with retail outlets in Canada, Japan, U.S. as well as Canada. Number of outside articles, which I've added a small selection to the article. Seems to meet
    WP:CORP (see #1). —ERcheck @ 23:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete as advert. -- Krash (Talk) 22:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per
  WP:CORP. Well done to ERCheck for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep on the rewrite, though it needs a "miscapitalized per article naming conventions" header, if anyone can remember how to do that. -Colin Kimbrell 17:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. The template is {{
    Lowercase}} —ERcheck @ 01:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Ah, that's the ticket. Thanks. -Colin Kimbrell 03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As advertising. (
  rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 00:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep on the rewrite. *drew 08:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's another (smaller) stub on the same subject at Lululemon Athletica. If this is kept, the two should be merged (there is mergable content). If this is deleted, that probably should be as well. In the event of a merge, I'd probably lean toward trucking most of the content from this article over to that one, since the smaller article is filed under the company's proper name. -Colin Kimbrell 15:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VT Productions

vanity piece Jim62sch 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn [4] vanity. -Harmil 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable advertisement. Chairman S. | Talk 01:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Once again, someone thinks WP=classified ads.--み使い Mitsukai 01:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising, vanity, and

http://www.freewebs.com/vtproductions

Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 02:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing more than an unencyclopedic ad. --Hetar 06:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. --Cymsdale 09:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Dlete as ad. --
  e Ong 14:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete ditto. --CTSWyneken 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fortean Bureau

nn, advertising, tone of article bordering on

• Delete per nom. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bobby1011 02:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cymsdale 09:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --
  e Ong 14:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, nn per nom. Kuru ^talk 17:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to be a Fortean fanzine, many of which also exist and aren't mentioned on WP. Delete as non-notable advertising, as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  22:40, 26 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.

• Delete per
  WP:BALLS, WP:VAIN, etc. Royal Blue ^T/_C 02:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC) On the fence. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless it can be proved that he is a notable author. The name also appears to be a pseudonym but he wouldn't be the first author to do that. Capitalistroadster 02:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a better case for notability is made than "[his one work] has been published in many forms and length". Sandstein 07:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "The Terror Timeline" gives 15 200 google hits [5], is sold in Amazon. com [6], is prominently refered to in 9/11 Truth sources. "The Terror Timeline" and "Paul Thompson" together still give 11 800 hits [7].--Striver 02:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The book even sold out here [8]. --Striver 02:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Terror Timeline" is a very unspecific query, don't you think?--Mmx1 03:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's funny. I get just under 1000. All goes to show that google results are usually not relevant to AfD nominations. I have been known to use them myself in the past, but with the recent examples that I've seen, I no longer consider them to hold any weight. Bobby1011 03:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My nomination doesn't claim
  Aaron 04:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This isn't grounds for deletion; it's grounds for improving the article via consensus editing. Review

WP:DP for more. You may also profit from perusing User:The_Cunctator; he suggests that deletion of articles be forbidden, and his arguments have some merit. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: It can be grounds for deletion; see my post below quoting

Aaron 01:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

No offense, but there's a difference between citing

WP:GAFD; the former is policy with a strong community consensus; the latter is an essay that never attempted to gain consensus. It's not even a guideline. As for cunctator, it's just Latin for 'delayer'. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Paul Thompson is notable, but the article needs POV removal badly. I think remove POV, cleanup, wikify, expand. It is obviously a fact that not every person who claims to be or seems to be a 9/11 related researcher qualifies for an article, but he is relevant and notable by Wikipedia standards. How could this person possibly be less qualifiable for an article than Andrew Dice Clay??? That is unless controversy becomes part of the equation and then we see taptaptap on the delete button. SkeenaR 04:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. I am skeptical as to whether or not this author is notable, but in any case The Terror Timeline is more notable than he is. Any relevent information should be moved to the aforementioned article. Isopropyl 05:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete nn--MONGO 10:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as published author with an audience of more than 10,000 as per
  the policy. His book fluctuated between 30,000 and 40,000 on Amazon.com's sales ratings, and as such likely has the audience noted above. NPOV issues are almost never grounds for deletion. That's what editing is for. Batmanand | Talk 11:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment:Per
  Aaron 21:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Seems sufficiently notable. TigerShark 14:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable enough. --
  e Ong 15:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Batmanand. Need cleanup to meet NPOV. —ERcheck @ 18:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Batmanand, but cleanup. —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by Jporcaro (talk • contribs
  ) 21:06, 26 February 2006.
• Delete Until it is proven, verifiably and not just with unverifiable claims, that the author is notable I'll vote delete. Striver up to his old antics. With so many of his articles getting majority delete afd's and he be accused so many times by contributing wikipedians about his POV edits isn't it about time he at least get a block from one of the administrators for exhausting the community's patience?--Jersey Devil 21:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with the behaviour of

request for comment on him if you think it is that bad. Please do not bring in your opinions of any particular user into this AfD. It is unlikely to ever be relevant; in this case it certainly is not. Batmanand | Talk 00:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It seems that patience with bogus deletion attempts is being tested. Deletion is unlikely. SkeenaR 05:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article says nothing about the notable status of the subject, save that he is a world traveller and has written something pertaining to 9/11. The substance of the article appears to be a critique of the subjects' published timeline of 9/11. This critique violates
  WP:NPOV and should be cleaned up to conform to WP standards. I would find it hard to vote either way on the subject of the article, as it doesn't include any facts upon which to base a judgement. Could more facts be provided by the author or another editor, please?  (aeropagitica)  22:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 23:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article needs improvement through consensus editing. It does not meet
  Wikipedia deletion criteria. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete NN UV --rogerd 04:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; notability is not adequately sourced; needs to cite at least one source "published by a reliable publisher". Terror Timeline is a primary source. "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication." See
  WP:RS Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not a reliable source.
  Morton devonshire 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That is editing rules, nothing about doing a article. With your resoning, we can delete the Bible article.--Striver 12:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and try, I dare ya.

Morton devonshire 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funga

• Delete As a neologism. Bobby1011 03:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per bobby. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  WP:NFT (this page explains the "things made up in school one day" guideline, not WP:NOT). Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Neologism. The first line did it in. Wkipedia is definitely not for something made up in school one day.--Dakota ~ ° 03:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable,
  WP:NFT-violating neologism. Essentially nothing more than an Urban Dicdef. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • In all seriousness, an article with this title would better serve as a redirect to Fungus. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn neologism. --
  e Ong 15:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 23:09, 26 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'm also protecting the page against re-creation.

Conspiracy factualist

Delete neologism. 26 unique google hits outside of Wikipedia. Was {{

• Delete, nn neologism. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatant neologism. Bobby1011 03:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism and oxymoron. Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-noteable neologism, wouldn't belong on Wikipedia anyway - it's at best a dictdef. Michael Ralston 03:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn, neologism, dictdef. --
  Aaron 04:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, as unverified neologism.
  Talk 10:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as nn neologism. --
  e Ong 15:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom. Death Eater Dan 17:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn neologism. Another part of the User:Striver's effort to spread his POV throughout wikipedia. I think we can all agree that the user has exhausted the community's patience--Jersey Devil 18:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete as nn-neo. -- Krash (Talk) 23:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism with incoherent POV argument given as justification.  (aeropagitica)  23:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. dbtfz^talk 04:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn neologism, though it has been used in
  Schizombie 20:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Colors

Wikipedia is not an English-to-French dictionary ~

• Delete, this is an encyclopedia. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete this is not a translation service. Bobby1011 03:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  Wikipedia is not a dictionary, translating or otherwise. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Most of the names in French either has a disambig. page or article themselves. Redundant. Mceder 04:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a translator. --MatthewUND^(talk) 09:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. -- Krash (Talk) 23:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what everyone else said --
  Bachrach44 23:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete current contents, make name into a redirect to Flag of France, since "colours" is a technical term for a flag. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second this redirect idea ~
    Booyabazooka 16:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Wiktionary, on the other hand, does accept these kinds of articles. Consider transwiki prior to deletion here. Rossami (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

Fupa

• Delete Original research. Bobby1011 03:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Booya, I've seen people use this term on other websites, but it still doesn't make a good article. A redirect could be the answer (though I'm not sure what to), but I'm leaning towards delete right now. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that I may have tagged it wrong in my deletion vote, but it still strikes me as a neologism. I wouldn't put it in a dictionary, and certainly not an encyclopedia. ~

Booyabazooka 03:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Where should it redirect to? Internet slang? Bobby1011 03:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. It does make sense. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more apt to add it to

Booyabazooka 03:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I doubt it's widespread, which is why I voted delete. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've certainly heard this term as well, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia, as it is essentially an Urban Dicdef. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild delete. The slang term has been around for a few years, and didn't originate from the article's author, but the article doesn't really add anything. Mike Church 04:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --
  e Ong 15:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Kinu. —ERcheck @ 18:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nnn (non-notable neologism). · rodii · 19:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously. (Dictdef, non notable, begone with it). --kingboyk 19:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn-neo. -- Krash (Talk) 23:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This term, to me, is offensive, disgusting, and demeaning. And I vote to keep it. Wikepedia is here to spread knowledge, not to judge terminology. —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by Marcyu (talk • contribs
  ) .
• Delete per nom.
  t||c|m 22:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

GOM

Neologism... the article admits it...

• Delete, it's a neologism dab page. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Makes not sense to me anyway. Bobby1011 03:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable neologism. The shameless blogvertising seals the deal. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - article was originally a redirect to Opium, which is (apparently) sometimes referred to as "God's Own Medicine". dbtfz^talk 06:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. --
  e Ong 06:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep but revert to version of 25 September 2005 -- intended as a correct TLA disambig page mervyn 08:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly reverted.

crashfan 15:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep/revert as per mervyn -- Astrokey44|talk 15:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete simpliciter. No infomration here worth keeping. · rodii · 19:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is now (again) a legitimate disambiguation page. dbtfz^talk 22:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a real TLA. -- Krash (Talk) 23:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep under current disambig format. --
  Bachrach44 23:38, 26 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Faiers

Non-notable, vanity. Delete Ardenn 03:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I googled "Chris Faiers" and every one of the titles, and none return more than a few hundred relevant hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Merge per the below. Royal Blue ^T/_C 03:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Canadian Poetry Association and Wayne Ray as these are at present all vanity from Wayne Ray, with the possible exception of Chris Faiers, which exists only to support the vanity articles. There are also articles for all of the founding members of the Canadian Poetry Association, that should probably me merged as well. Bobby1011 03:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. This article survived a previous Afd from the same nominator [9], and this nomination was made only 10 minutes after the previous discussion closed. Nominator placed inappropriate tag on article so prior discussion would not be visible. Subject of article is clearly notable, founder of notable Canadian small press specializing in poetry. See related discussion re proposed deletion of Unfinished Monument Press (which also survived the same nominator's AfD effort) . Monicasdude 16:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Monicasdude. Bad form on the re-AfD, Ardenn. I doubt most of us are really equipped to judge notability in poetry, where even highly significant poets may publish with small houses. Unless we're prepared to say poetry is inherently non-notable, I think we should let this one stay--it makes a good prima facie case for notability in my opinion. · rodii · 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I will add that Faiers wrote one of the more extensive treatments on the late 60s/early 70s hippie scene on Eel Pie Island, Eel Pie Dharma. It's a valuable source on researcher interested in that scene. So to this individual, at least, he was notable before I had any idea he had a Wikipedia page. (I've added a note on the CF talk page suggesting more of this background be filled in.) · rodii ·

• Comment If Bob Dole were here right now, Bob Dole would speedy delete it!--64.12.116.197 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Thankfully he isn't! Speedy Keep as per above Jcuk 22:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. My thoughts from round one still stand. -- Krash (Talk) 23:25, 26 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 by apparent author request. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 06:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GRODMIN (film)

Non-notable student film, less than 10 google hits, no mention on IMDB, probable Vanity edit -- Aim Here 03:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. I would suggest grouping this AfD with Jim Horwitz. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, the author just blanked the page. Either they were distraught by the AfD or that's their way of requesting deletion. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:26, 26 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. Bobby1011 26.02.2006

Jim Horwitz

Non-notable student filmmaker with no imdb mentions, or any obvious net presence, other than his student film's page. I've put the film GRODMIN (film) up for Afd too -- Aim Here 03:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. I would suggest grouping this AfD with GRODMIN (film). Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as merge the AfD nominations together as per Royboycrashfan. Bobby1011 04:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as db-bio, and tagged as such. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Blanked by User:Squish and tagged as {{empty}} by User:Bobby1011. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kessel

Delete-this battle never occured. If you check the Wookiepeedia they also had this page and deleted it. Also a google search ends up with only a few relevant results, one of which is the article itself and another website which sources Wikipedia as its source. It is a made up article which as been mistakenly taken as real. Jedi6 04:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as StarWarscruft. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with what ever book/comic/magazine/website published the story in which this "battle" "happened". Bobby1011 04:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge of this stuff happened, if it's fanon, delete. It's probably some little scene in a NJO book. Deckiller 04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked this isn't in anything. Its made completely up. Jedi6 04:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then Speedy G1. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax (or fanfic, at best). Alternately, rewrite to discuss the battles at that location described in the
  Jedi Academy Trilogy. —Kirill Lokshin 04:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. BryanG 04:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --
  e Ong 06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. There is nothing in the canonical Star Wars Expanded Universe that could be classed as "The Battle of Kessel"; there have been a handful of "Skirmishes at Kessel", a series of "Raids at Kessel", and at least two "'Han Solo Pisses Everyone Off' at Kessel", none of which deseve an article. (Note, after writing this, I then decided to go and read the article) In addition, this sure as hell didn't happen in canonical New Jedi Order. Also, there is no General Luke Skywalker, he never beat Commander, quit less than five years after the movies, and by the time the Jedi came back into favour in the New Republic, it was the Galactic Alliance, and Tsavong Lah had less than three months to live. -- Saberwyn 10:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete definetely, no place for false information here.
  Tutmosis 21:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per Saberwyn's comments. A non-canonical fictional battle in a fictional universe? Wannabe-fancruft article, it appears.  (aeropagitica)  22:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fanihoaxcruftic. -- Krash (Talk) 23:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a new one! -- Saberwyn 01:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. On Wookieepedia, 5 trusted users unanimously voted to delete this. -LtNOWIS 01:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as hoax. Unsourced article directly contradicts canonical fiction. --BinaryTed 18:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2006-02-26 01:50Z

Niesa Dewitt

Wikipedia is not America's Most Wanted Bobby1011 04:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, this should be deleted. Bsd987 04:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy A6. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy A6 per Royboycrashfan. --
  Aaron 04:32, 26 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; original research, system is not universally recognized. Madchester 23:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Winter Olympics points

Delete.

• Delete per nom. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Merge per Mceder. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Points are allocated in such as way, as to move the creators nation of origin, Norway from place 13 to place 6. The other nations are hardly affected. Bobby1011 04:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into
  Aaron (talk • contribs
  )
• Weak Delete, possible merge. Not truly original research as some Scandinavian newspapers have used this in the past, but it does not really make it wikipedia worthy. Mceder 04:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. If it isn't it is not notable apart from the official tally. Capitalistroadster 04:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. I find no evidence that this "points system" is sanctioned by anyone or is considered official in any form. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research, and merge some content to
  e Ong 06:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Need I even justify the vote? Original research; not notable in any case. Redux 17:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is the point of using a point system? Plus, it is independant research and isn't even official. I don't see any point (pardon the pun) to keep it. --Omnieiunium 19:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Very Strong Delete. The mere existance of this article is a violation of the tag on the 2006 page and debate over
  [T]/_[+] 19:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as original research--Tone 23:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR. --
  Bachrach44 23:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Topic is nencyclopedic and pointless. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 17:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westology

Doesn't seem to be very notable and doesn't generate any solid, unambiguous hits on Google. CrypticBacon 04:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn term and
  original research. Royal Blue ^T/_C 04:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as neologism. Bobby1011 04:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as rarely used term. Edgar181 12:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Contemprory" indeed! The name Foucault always rings alarm bells. Let's wait till it gets at least 1,000 times its current number of google hits. Delete as mere neologism (no, there's no originality and no research involved). -- Hoary 15:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism (and not a very useful one at that). I don't think that Google is at all a reliable measure, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Original research"/neologism. Article creator has same name as blog author that is in referenced "See also". From his 2004 blog entry: 'I have wanted to start a new discipline, which I had tentatively called Westology" —ERcheck @ 18:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Google hits are not a good/reliable measure of "academic" popularity. I was thinking of merging it with Occidentalism, but the ideas are not similar. If it does not get the votes, i will move it to user page - SV 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-neo. -- Krash (Talk) 23:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per remarks above. dbtfz^talk 01:44, 27 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.