Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 27 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CDThieme (talk | contribs) at 02:00, 27 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:00, 27 January 2006 by CDThieme (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< January 26 >
Guide to deletion Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

January 27

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as very short articles with no context. Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

De Appel Curatorial Training Program; De Appel

Non-notable subject; article doesn't assert... anything, really. If it is a notable subject then the article can be developed in the Sandbox before being posted to the WP proper.  (aeropagitica)  23:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

WinSrev

Self-promotion. Site down when tried to access. Google hits bb developer discusions/promotion. —ERcheck @ 00:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Lally Katz

Non notable author. She had one play performed at the NY Fringe 2 years ago. The other play mentioned was not performed at the NY Fringe according to their archieves - see talk page. The writer of a single play performed 7 times in a small venue is not notable per WP:BIO. Delete Obina 00:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Coventry License Bureau

As far as I can guess from the article, this is just one of many county DMV bureaus offering county-clerk type services. Unremarkable, somewhat of an ad, and perhaps vanity since the Deputy Registrar and the article's creator are both named Tom. Draeco 00:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Ecclesiates 1:2. Vanity, thy name is NOT Misplaced Pages. --The most intelligent Wikipedian to exist, period! 00:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

SESAME

Non notable club in a single University. Not even worth merging since there seem to be 50 larger clubs at Evergreen state. Delete. Obina 00:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. SYCTHOS 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ArtRocker

Delete as non-notable journal. Alexa ranks the home page as #648,519, per . Feel free to correct me if any of this is wrong. SYCTHOS 00:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep (nomination withdrew) with expansion and redirect from Artrocker. The 600,000s are high? I'll be sure to keep that in mind in the future. SYCTHOS 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Artifact (computer game)

Delete as non-notable computer game. SYCTHOS 00:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/redir 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Avanc

Merge as vanity on its own, but closely related to The Scar. SYCTHOS 00:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete if merging is not possible. SYCTHOS 00:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Stella K Abraham High School for Girls

No evidence that this is a renowned educational institute. External links only lead to own page and basic stats. Google: 170 unique hits. Needs evidence of academic merit, notable alumni etc. to become encyclopedic. Otherwise Delete. Deiz 00:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but I completely disagree with you. Your complaints go well beyond the school guidelines here. And if you had any legitimate concerns, you should have posted them first to the article talk page. Starting with an AfD nom is unnecessarily confrontational. -- JJay 02:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Suddenly we have an article! Add a link that verifies the controversy thing and we're getting somewhere. A few more nuggets of info and it might even resemble an encyclopedia entry. Better wikipedia articles through confrontation? You bet... --Deiz 03:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
**I don't really see an AfD from a user who, looking at his contributions, obviously has not been through the rounds in the overall school AfD controversy as "confrontational." Please WP:Assume Good Faith. I'd also encourage Deiz not to use what I'll assuming is a tongue-in-cheek way of speaking here, as, in my experience, it hasn't played very well in this highly contested and touchy subject. Let's all keep it calm. -Rebelguys2 03:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I consider all AfDs to be confrontational, barring the most egregious examples, if other avenues (i.e. templates and talk page) have not been tried first. For topics that are in any way valid, AfD should be a last resort. -- JJay 03:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was clarifying my post when you made your last edit, and don't want to replace it now that you've responded...I've went ahead and struck it. I don't really see an AfD from a user who, looking at his contributions, obviously has not been through the rounds in the overall school AfD controversy, as "confrontational." Please WP:Assume Good Faith. Don't take your disagreements with his vote as grounds for accusing his opinions of being ilegitimate ("And if you had any legitimate concerns..."); there has certainly been much past debate, but please do not bite the newcomers. I'd also encourage Deiz not to use here what I'm assuming to be a tongue-in-cheek way of speaking, though this encouragement is hardly policy. In my experience, however, sarcasm does not play well online, and is certainly going to raise eyebrows in this highly contested and touchy subject. Let's all keep it calm. -Rebelguys2 03:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to further clarify, the last thing I ever want to do is bite newcomers and I have no idea if that is applicable to this nom. I was responding to a direct comment addressed to me. However, while the nomination would seem to be perfectly legimate based on the voting, I continue to feel that AfD (not just schools but any topic) is rarely the best approach. -- JJay 03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the main issue still falls back to, *cringe*, the "bar of notability," of which there's no definitive consensus. "And if you had any legitimate concerns" (i.e., his concerns of notability) is what came off as hostile to me, though I know you're civil and a good faith user. Don't worry about it. -Rebelguys2 04:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • To Kappa, JJay & Rebel, much love... to all the others who have voted, the page looked a damn sight different when I made the nomination and was struggling to pass the "3 original sentences" test on WP:SCH. Look at it now... ++Deiz 02:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDILY REDIRECTED to ham and cheese sandwich, for reasons that should be obvious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ham and cheese

Nonsense, irrelevant. Draeco 00:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (4 clear delete votes, 9 clear keep votes, 8 clear merge votes, 2 partial delete votes and 2 partial keep votes) into one article. --Gareth Hughes 15:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad Thing, Good Thing, Right Thing, Wrong Thing

Delete or redirect to thing. --Revolución (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I use them capitalised, and didn't know where they'd come from. I'm sorry to have missed a joke, but I think the concepts are notable outside of the book. Robin Johnson 16:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Then other sources should be able to be cited, no? --Interiot 16:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be surprised if they couldn't. (And if it turned out they couldn't, I wouldn't defend the articles.) The Jargon File/Hacker's Dictionary springs to mind, if that counts. (If it doesn't count as a decent source in itself, it may well give some pointers to places that do.) Robin Johnson 16:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Um, no. One could write paragraphs about Martha Stewart's and her company's usage of the term "Good Thing". The term is at the top of every one of her magazines. To my knowledge, she and her company have never used any of the other terms. --TreyHarris 18:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Context Watcher, C-Log

Delete as advertisements for non-notable products. SYCTHOS 00:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Chinalife

Ad with only one true Google hit -- the homepage. Draeco 00:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCD✉ 14:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Quantica

Speedy delete as non-notable band. SYCTHOS 00:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCD✉ 14:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Queenie (Artist)

Speedy delete as non-notable singer-songwriter. SYCTHOS 00:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was del/redirect. mikka (t) 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Squier P-Bass Special 5

Delete Advertisement of product Bugturd 00:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCD✉ 14:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Flashlight Fights

NN vanity, bereft of a single true Google hit. Draeco 00:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have done research on a group I have spectated on for years. I thought it was interesting enough to put onto Misplaced Pages because they are warriors. Inspired to fight their problems away instead of breaking the law. Noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illcalculated (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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Donkey Show

NN song vanity, not even a band. Moreover, WP:NOT a place for source material, like song lyrics. Draeco 01:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not send copyright violations to wikisource, this obviously to new to be public domain. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 along with images. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Bloody Zone

This page refers to an Egyptian Metal webboard with approx. 1000 pageviews. Clearly not notable. Powers 01:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. More likely an Egyptian with an intermediate grasp of English. Powers 15:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yart

Delete as neologism. SYCTHOS 01:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I'm undecided on this one. I got 350 Google results for "yart yard art" (yart has a few other obscure meanings as well, so I had to specify somehow). That seems low, but the subject matter of the article is at least minimally notable. Perhaps move it to Yard art with a redirect from Yart? Unless the same idea exists under a different title already... Powers 01:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Yard art is called....landscaping. Ruby 02:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Sort of. They seem to be referring to such things as plastic flamingos and plywood cutouts of fat women's derrierres. Not what I'd call landscaping. =) Powers 02:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 was withdrawn. --a.n.o.n.y.m 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You're Gonna Get It!

Delete as vanity album. SYCTHOS 01:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep (nomination withdrew) with expansion. At the time of nomination, I only saw an unorganized track list () and assumed it was vanity. SYCTHOS 21:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. HappyCamper 04:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yuyomayam

Speedy delete as blatant copyright infringement per and self-promotion. SYCTHOS 01:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCD✉ 14:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yvette Burton

Speedy delete as biography of a non-notable person. SYCTHOS 01:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCD✉ 14:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agnes Dean Abbatt

NN artist and copyvio to boot. Draeco 01:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was del mikka (t) 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Zin-Azshari

Merge and redirect to Night elf. SYCTHOS 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete if this is not possible as fancruft. SYCTHOS 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Paperwavium

Neologism, no Google hits. —Kirill Lokshin 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I read it as "using grant money to verify things that everyone already knows about"--in other words, wasting funding to tell you things that should be obvious. NO? rodii
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Zirconium Propionate

Delete does not contain substantive material and appears to have been created to promote the company linked to products ChemGardener 01:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Yesterday I suggested we keep a different article around to see what happens, and nearly tripped over all the crystal balls that were tossed at me. Ruby 03:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You were sadly misinterpreted yesterday. Everyone thought you meant wait and see if the subject took off, not the article. Or something. - squibix 02:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -Greg Asche (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo DS Heavy

Google search suggests this is not a real product; no version of the page has been coherent. Allen 01:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Pitiful attempt of a message board to make a sad joke.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (probably speedy candidate in the first place). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Gingell

Delete page appears to have been created to promote the web link it contains ChemGardener 01:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

brian d foy

Non-notable bio. CDThieme 01:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Um ... says who? That's nonsense. He's a very well-known figure in significant communities. He also satisfies the requirement "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." (His most recent book sold 13,000 copies last quarter alone.) Go away KTHX. Pudgenet 02:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio, he helped to tweak a computer book that has Randal L. Schwartz as the original sole author. I'm sure in the annals of the Earth he will be duly enshrined. Ruby 02:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You have no idea what you are talking about. He wrote about a quarter of the new, and completely revised, edition. Plus he has been published multiple times in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more (TPJ was 10,000). Plus, he is writing a third or more of Intermediate Perl (which will surely have a circulation of well over 5,000), and the new edition of Mastering Perl (ditto). What's the point of having notability guidelines if you're just going to ignore them? Pudgenet 02:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes we gotta think outside the box. Ruby 03:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
And your thinking is, what? You hold a personal grudge? Or something less substantive? Pudgenet 03:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I apologize BTW for being a bit blunt and abrasive. I have a massive head cold and am irritable, and this is just annoying. Pudgenet 03:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Gold Team

Delete--Vanity/Non-notable Bugturd 01:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 mikka (t) 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jenny Spires

If she was the girlfriend of Pink Floyd, is that notable? Kareeser| 01:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Humorous aside: Otherwise we'd have to call this Groupiepedia (Groupiedia?) Daniel Case 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The hard drive has not yet been built that is big enough to hold List of people who have been f*cked by members of Motley Crue -- GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.