Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 6: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:34, 6 June 2006

< June 5	>

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

June 6

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Ling

Vanity for Mr. Ling. His work with Naschy and the Grandmother Martha project can be (and mostly has been) merged with those respective articles. Holding an out-of-date couple of Guinness entries is not a free pass to notability, nor is trying to pass oneself off as a member of the Holy Roman Empire. For your examination, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-04-27, searching for "Sydney Ling" and, as further evidence, don't take my word for it - see The official Sydney Ling site. Still convinced of notability? Girolamo Savonarola 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems somewhat notable. --Ezeu 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Main reasons to keep are borderline notability in low-budget movies, and to debunk the hype. Tearlach 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. RobLinwood 00:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per Ezeu. QuizQuick 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems marginally notable. Tachyon01 03:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN. Marginal notability is not a keeper. Tychocat 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We're not running out of space and he is somewhat notable. Ben W Bell talk 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Home produced movies are about as notable as vanity published books. -- GWO
Delete, not notable per GWO. - Motor (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per GWO. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gotta love the link to the official Sydney Ling site. in the nomination (not the article itself), but that little laugh notwithstanding, the article does suggest sufficient notability for mine. Colon el Tom 13:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject does not meet inclusion criteria at WP:BIO.--Isotope23 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sure, there's a little notability, but definitely not enough. -- Kicking222 14:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Jmsloderbeck 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete not quite notable enough for me. —M e ts501^talk 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Home movies does not meet WP:BIO. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guiness Book of World Records is not an indicator of notability. Part of the appeal of the book is that most of the people in it are entirely obscure. If he had the world record for something more notable we cold talk, but making a long documentary of his grandmother doesn't really qualify. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough, as said --SeanMcG 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough, as said --—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough Bwithh 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to be sort of notable Chipka 13:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per savidan Computerjoe 's talk 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please there is some notability and wiki is not paper Yuckfoo 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per CSD G1. Naconkantari 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome (power)

Seriously? Maybe even speedy delete under nonsense. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 00:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete and bjoadn nonsense Benon 00:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN SM247 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: as nonesense.Deathawk 00:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Not funny enough for BJAODN. DarthVad e r 00:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per nom WCX 00:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. RobLinwood 00:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: as nonsense. -- Scientizzle 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango 123 15:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Journalisticity

Delete. Original research. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 00:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism, heavily POV. --Bachrach44 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No other references/information outside this entry.
Delete crap neologism. SM247 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but mind the NPA. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - SM247 seems to be referring to the neologism and not the creator of the article, therefore there is no P at which a Personal Attack could be directed. Peyna 01:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Correct. I believe crap is an excellent universal word of a derisory nature and in this case was clearly directed at what is obviously a coined phrase of no common usage or notability. If I had said 'crap editor' (which I certainly do not mean), you were indeed correct to remind me. SM247 04:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - If user x writes an article and user y calls it "crap", it is most certainly a personal attack. Why don't we err on the side of civility, please? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        With all due respect, I disagree with you here, Russian. I don't think you're a bad person, so if you wrote a bad article, I would easily be able to call it crap without calling you crap. I call articles garbage in AfD discussions frequently, but it's because I think the article- not the person(s) who wrote/edited it- is of little value. -- Kicking222 14:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I agree with Kicking222. Excellent editors are capable of making crap edits. Me. For example. -- GWO
        
        If user X is offended at user Y calling user X's article "crap," then user X needs to read WP:OWN. Plus, WP:NPA pretty clearly explains what is and isn't a personal attack, and this was nowhere near that. Peyna 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. RobLinwood 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per neologism Masterpjz9 03:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references. Reads like original research. Tachyon01 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like nonsense to me.Ben W Bell talk 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Molerat 14:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. --Guinnog 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletisticity savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Deville (Talk) 22:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above redfox 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. Ace of Sevens 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very POV neologism, no sources. WP:SNOW? Grand master ka 04:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango 123 15:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philorthodox

creator deleted prod w/o explanation. fails WP:WEB. Bachrach44 00:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RobLinwood 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB Masterpjz9 03:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an advertisement. Tachyon01 03:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- it is an advertisement. Reyk _YO! 07:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tychocat 07:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Motor (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB, advertising. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement Jmsloderbeck 17:10, 6 June 2006
Delete per WP:WEB --Guinnog 17:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Ace of Sevens 09:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Eluchil404 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website, very POV article. Grand master ka 04:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Rmhermen. DarthVad e r 01:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martinolagucci

Delete. Violates WP:BIO. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 00:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete garbage. SM247 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Complete bollocks. --Ezeu 00:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. CSD G1. DarthVad e r 00:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. per others. RobLinwood 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was snowy delete. Sango 123 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britannia cars

1. This article is trivial. 2. Advertising - Only reason for existence appears to be to link to commercial site DavidCane

Delete. Spam. RobLinwood 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN company. --Ezeu 02:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn ad Funky Monkey (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement/spam. Tachyon01 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP Masterpjz9 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam and fails WP:CORP - Motor (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising for non notable company. Ben W Bell talk 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:SPAM, WP:CORP --Ter e nc e Ong 13:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Grand master ka 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final option

Delete. I'm not certain, but I lean towards deletion on this. Thought I'd err on the side of AfD, since that'll open it up to consensus. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 00:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient context, merge content to an appropriate article on counterterrorism or the event described. SM247 00:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad for an old movie. Tychocat 07:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, dreadful article but could conceivably be expanded into a discussion of the final step in police/counter-terror activity... but unless that happens quickly or someone comes up with a good redirect target... delete. - Motor (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no way this is a formal or specific enough term to make an encyclopedic article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as the only contributor has blanked the article in this revision [1] BigDT 11:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, I believe this fits G5, since he blanked the page. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've unblanked the article. I'd like to give the editor who created it a chance to improve it. - Motor (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With some cleanup, expansion, and attention, I think it could be expanded into a very useful article. At the moment it focuses on one incident related to terrorism, but I have heard it used in other contexts, and it is more or less a general law enforcement term. It definately needs expanding, but it is worth keeping. ONUnicorn 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is almost content-free, pretty much all the content it has is false other than a dicdef, and it is hard to see how it could ever be improved. Redirect to Who Dares Wins (film) (which is nothing to do with the incident described, but was indeed called Final Option in the US). --Guinnog 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do as you like. Delete or keep. But DO NOT say the content is false without explaining. Also, if you cannot see how the film Who Dares Wins, AKA The Final Option, illustrates the term, or do not believe that it was inspired by Operation Nimrod then perhaps you are unqualified to comment. As for content, there wil never be any if it is deleted. I thought the entire point of this obviously anal site is improvement through open contributions. Once again, do as you like. It obviously means more to you than to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianb0806 (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 snowy delete. Sango 123 15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Rushford-Upton-Berkeley

Looks like vanity but I'm not sure. Got precisely zero google hits when I tried to look for it. Fr a ncs2000 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. It is some poor fellow who has spent 195 quid at lord-of-the-manor-titles.co.uk. --Ezeu 00:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ezeu. Thais article is pretty nonsensical. -- Kicking222 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity spam. RobLinwood 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. the "nickname, Lord Rubik" kind of gives it away. Fan1967 01:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure nonsense. No notability. Tachyon01 03:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Ezeu. - Motor (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, or maybe a meaningless, purchased title, like His Lordship the Viscount St. Austell-in-the-Moor Biggleswade-Brixham -- GWO
Delete, vanity, hoax, if not no assertion of notability. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject does not meet the inclusion criteria at WP:BIO.--Isotope23 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as hoax, or at best nn-bio. --Guinnog 17:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, hoax. --Charlesknight 20:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. redfox 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A meaningless, purchased title, the very essence of non-notable vanity. Grand master ka 04:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 G4. RasputinAXP c 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Action Party (2nd nomination)

Per previous AfD, utterly irrelevant political grouping, comprehensively shown by the content of the article to be NN (I hesitate to call it a party - if it is, it is almost certainly a boring one where even the vaguely interesting guests have all gone home) SM247 00:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-It is not an expression of opinion and provides fact. If this should be removed, then many other things-such as old baseball players-should be removed. If it helps people learn, it shouldn't be removed. Alex 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only does the article state that the "party" is no longer active, but they (or "he", most likely) aren't (unlike old baseball players) even of historical interest. RobLinwood 00:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More nn political cruft. KleenupKrew 00:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a one man party... MarineCorps 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says it all: it has no chapters anywhere, no candidates for office; the party does not seem to be active in any way, shape or form. I'm almost wondering if this is speediable, since I'm not seeing any claim to notability. Peyna 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The party has not grown any more notable since its last AfD which ended in a delete. --Metropolitan90 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, this probably qualifies as a speedy for recreation of previous deleted content, no? Peyna 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD debate was a while ago. DarthVad e r 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've added a db-repost tag anyway. Quote: Currently, the party does not seem to be active in any way, shape or form as it's website currently is off the Internet. - Motor (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. DarthVad e r 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peyna. Tachyon01 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, politicruft and repost of already deleted material. I've added a db-repost tag. - Motor (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, politicruft, nn party, its a repost of the old article. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Redirects don't belong on AfD; and no incoming links is not a valid reason to delete a redirect anyway. Peyna 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RC airplane

While fixing double redirects, I see that no pages link here EuroSong 00:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to radio-controlled aircraft - I think that it could be used as a search term. - Richardcavell 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you might try listing this on Redirects for Deletion instead, if it was just a redirect and you think it's not needed. Otherwise, change the redirect to Radio-controlled aircraft. KleenupKrew 00:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (probably speedy). In-bound links are NOT the only reason for redirects--they're used for searching alternate terms and to prevent duplicate article creation, among other things. This should stay as a redirect to Radio-controlled aircraft. 24.18.215.132 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Radio-controlled aircraft. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It already was a redirect prior to be listed for AfD, therefore this AfD is improper and I'm going to close it now and change it back to a redirect. If you want to relist it, do so at Redirects for Deletions. Peyna 01:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Global Positioning System. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homing device

Delete. Should be transwikied or just flat-out deleted. We're not a dictionary. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Global Positioning System -- Fr a ncs2000 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either expand or delete per it's 'stubiness'. Kershner 01:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GPS tracking, Global Positioning System or anywhere useful. -- saberwyn 01:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it can be expanded greatly, such as types of homing devices and how they work. -- Kjkolb 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Articles can and should be deleted when they contain no content as this one does. If the article were expanded (and you are free to do so) I would likely change my 'Delete' to a 'Keep'. Kershner 04:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Global Positioning System article. It would be more suited there. Tachyon01 03:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tachyon01. Redirects are cheap and useful. Reyk _YO! 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to something useful. Global Positioning System is a good start. - Motor (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Global Positioning System. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Global Positioning System —M e ts501^talk 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd suggest redirecting to somewhere useful, but I can't think of a thing. tracking and tracing seems the best bet of any articles I can find from a quick scan. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to missile guidance or guidance system. --Interiot 12:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. GPS would be a good redirect for this article. Delta 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GPS would not be a good redirect for this article. Grumble. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to tracking and tracing as per Arthur. Amalas =^_^= 14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:Harro5 - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJM Games

Blatant advertising for a nonnotable, and possibly completely made-up, game company -- dcclark (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mr. L e fty _{Talk to me!} 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Either a hoax or somebody using Wikipedia to spam. No such game company exists. Web search came up blank. KleenupKrew 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to the speedy delete process, and a quick readover of WP:SPEEDY didn't exactly help me -- there seems to be no obvious template for spam or advertising. Could someone help? -- dcclark (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{db|Article about a corporation that fails to make any assertion or claim of notability}} probably would suffice. Peyna 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles which were created primarily for the point of advertising their products may be considered nonsense to some and have absolutely no place on wikipedia. I think many users like to speedy articles because there's a lot of spam articles and they need to be dealt with more quickly.--Andeh 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Delete, pure spam/advertising.--Andeh 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per Peyna above, I have moved this to a speedy delete.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Hidden Frontier

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Delete. Fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Star Trek cruft. MilesToGo 01:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this seems to be a notable fan production. Note that Star Trek: New Voyages also has an article and both fan productions are mentioned in the "Canonicity and other storylines" section of the Star Trek article. It has plenty of non-trivial google hits and has been mentioned in Variety magazine [2]. I had never heard of it until just now ... but then again, after the debacle of Enterprise, I haven't kept up with the Star Trek scene. Anyway, it looks notable to me. BigDT 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just downloaded an episode ... unwatchable is putting it mildly ... the CG is amazing, but everyone has a green glow (from a green screen) around them ... and calling the acting bad is putting it mildly. The only saving grace is that B&B aren't there to screw it up. BigDT 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Upon watching the first few episodes, I considered it really cheesy, but I have to say that their production values and acting have improved as they've continued. Michael Robson 15:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Erik the Rude 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm series, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above, a notable, respected, and popular fanfilm series. Tachyon01 04:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A "well-respected and popular fanfilm series" sounds like a contradiction in terms almost. More to the point, how the hell do you measure whether a fanfilm is "well-respected and popular"? --Calton | Talk 05:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Variety article pushes it just over the notability bar. It and New Voyages are pretty well the two main productions of this subgenre. 23skidoo 05:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. HF, Exeter and New Voyages are notable films and should not be deleted. HF is the longest running Star Trek fanfilm, with the largets body of work. They've been featured in Variety magazine and have an extremely large following. Nick Cook 06:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC) This comment was accidentally posted at the AfD discussion directly below this one. I've just cut&pasted it here, leaving the content unchanged. Reyk _YO! 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calton. Reyk _YO! 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fan fiction is generally not notable, but this looks like a very popular series. JIP | Talk 08:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable fancruft. Being popular with a small collection of people with internet connections and a wikipedia accounts does not justify an entry on Wikipedia. See also, flashcruft, flashartists, furries etc etc etc etc. Copy it to Memory Alpha if it's not already there. - Motor (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Memory Alpha does not accept articles on fan fiction - see [3] - their mission is information on the canonical Star Trek universe. It isn't a question of notability for them, it's a question of being off-topic. BigDT 11:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is actually a notable, popular and long running fan series. Ben W Bell talk 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not popular enough. -- GWO
Keep, This is the longest running fanchise out there. It inspired just about all of the current fan film producers to take up the camera. JusticeCEO 11:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as an example of fan-produced/amateur film production as a whole --Mhking 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this surpasses cruft, and hovers peacefully on the event horizon of notability. A little more lead paragraph info and a little less episode documentation wouldn't hurt, though. Colon el Tom 13:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this fan made series are usually non-notable, but this is exceptional. If its non-notable, I believe it would only have one season not seven, notable fan film. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fanfic is rarely suitable article material, but as Terence Ong has stated above, the sheer number of episodes this has generated would seem to make it something of an exception to the rule.--Isotope23 14:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kirok and others Su-laine.yeo 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I don't particular care for the series, it's definitely notable for its influence on the fanfilm community and longevity. TheRealFennShysa 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more trekcruft— Milkandwookiees ^(T | C) 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable fan production. It also has very active forums with 60,743 Posts in 3,053 Topics by 2,418 Members, which means it is not something that someone is doing independently. —M e ts501^talk 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable fan fiction. (For what it's worth, although I'm an ST fan, I'm not a fan of ST fan fiction. I found this through WP:AFD and WP:ANI, not by an "invitation".) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - if we're going to have any fanfic type stuff listed here, then this is the one to have. not an st fan. frymaster 19:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete nonnotable fanfic/fancruft. Please find a or start your own fanfiction star trek wiki if you want this online Bwithh 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Hidden Frontier is anything but "non-notable." In addition they already have their own wikipedia and a very active circle of fans. That those fans are limited to Star Trek fandom does not make them non-notable.

It's great that you have your wiki. so please transwiki Bwithh 23:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion. -- Wikipedical 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Variety article and IMDB. Easily verifiable. Ziggurat 04:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard of it, and I'm nto exactly a big Trekker. It seems notable to me. Ace of Sevens 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a fairly notable series, unlike most random fan-fiction this is well respected and heard of by people outside the community Wolfsbane Kane 12:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They're also listed in a variety of other news source as well, including CNN. IMDB.com also has a page dedicated to this fan series as well. Despite the fact that it may be of poor quality or laughable storylines, it does have the virtue of being the Longest Running Fan Series for Star Trek, and one of the first to attempt to sucessfully recreate the Live Action series style from the professional TV series productions - 59.167.44.106 00:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if any fan films are notable, this is. Eluchil404 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just in being a venture lasting many years with a large following grants it being in Wiki. Wiki is not just about history and many works of literature that are separate from the original venture, such as in Star Wars have been allowed to remain so this should be allowed to have its own page. Wiki is about bringing knowledge to the people and it would be inappropriate to make it harder to get information of this fan series. Lord_Hawk 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC-8)
Keep - with a large amount of television shows on this site already, i see no reason why a web-based production, albeit a fanfilm, cant have a place here. Arkadyfolkner 10:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- this is this user's first edit on Wikipedia, and his sole contributions have been to this vote
Keep or Merge maybe be non-notable to people outside of the community but notable within the Star Trek Fan Film Community. PirateGent 15:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Nick Cook, Kirok of L'Stok, Lord Hawk, and Arkadyfolkner. If anything, though, the page should be improved, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Robson (talk • contribs) 10:29, June 8, 2006
Keep - Articles like this are the reason I began getting involved with Wikipedia several years ago. Something should not be deleted because a small number consider it stupid or unnecessary. This is supposed to be a fountain of knowledge, an Encyclopedia that covers all subjects. If you remove this and similar articles, what is to prevent someone from making a case to remove all articles about other small subjects. When someone is curious about something, this needs to remain the place to look, and if you remove this article, you are taking away one of the valuable assets of this be a free (in charge and thought) encyclopedia, focusing on things that For-Profit encyclopedias don't focus on. TEG 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strictly because I don't understand the nomination. --JJay 00:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - the article is self-serving at best, incomplete and useless at worst 65.113.125.77 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Worth keeping, as side note, someone deleted my earlier vote to keep, if this happens again that someone will get themselves reported. Arkadyfolkner 05:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't vote twice, and your earlier vote wasn't deleted, as a moment's search through the page would've revealed — it was moved to the bottom of the vote [4], because AfD votes are listed in chronological order, top to bottom. (WP:AFDM#Refactoring the discussion thread: Some new users add comments at the top of the discussion instead of at the bottom. It is appropriate to move those comments to restore the logical/chronological order.) The nature of my action was also explicitly stated in the edit description itself, which you evidently also appeared to overlook before you decided to assume bad faith. Sadly, such assumptions are more the rule than the exception around here. — Mike • 05:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you find time in between writing your eloquent AfD noms, please see WP:Bite. --JJay 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you find time inbetween writing your eloquent snarks, please see WP:NOFEEDING. And if you feel the need to reply to this remark, please do so on my talk page, although I'd much prefer you didn't. — Mike • 00:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd rather do it here. You write one word noms, but seven lines to rag on a new user. I reiterate: see WP:bite. --JJay 02:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        There are a plethora of points you and I could engage on this discussion. Whether my actions were warranted or not. Whether you're being civil or not. Whether you're assuming bad faith or not. Whether you're disrupting the AfD process to make a point or not. Whether editors have to abide by guidelines. But the fact is, I'm enjoying my weekend, and it does in fact take two people to argue. So I'm afraid you're just going to have to satisfy yourself on this one. — Mike • 03:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Strange that it bothers you that I cite one link. I suggest you read it while enjoying your weekend. --JJay 03:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable series, natch! DillPickle 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Our series is being described as "non-notable" by a few. How are they defining "notable" that we somehow fail? How do we BECOME notable, and therefore worthy of continued inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhiting (talk • contribs) 14:12, June 11, 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Aside from it being a well known fan project, the series itself is an example of the effects a franchise such as Star Trek has on fans and followers and, in this case, the internet community. Therefore it should be kept on a site that promotes learning. decapattack_uk 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has an IMDB entry and is covered in non-Star Trek blogs. I'd say it's notable enough Sumergocognito 04:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich

Wikipedia is not an indistriminate collection of information. A bet between two scientists is not important enough for its own article. Notable only to fans of Simon or Ehrlich. Has sufficient coverage in those articles - delete KleenupKrew 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawing nomination and retreating somewhere to Eat Crow. Would not have thought a bet like this was notable but apparently it is. KleenupKrew 02:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom, and note that the article consists almost entirely of quoted material. Peyna 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm change my vote to abstain, but I'll still move for a cleanup. Peyna 02:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As arcane as this may appear to you, it is not arcane to those in the field. This was a substantive event and the conclusions drawn from the outcome of the bet is of regular interest to students and scholars alike. The article is well cited and by no means a stub. Additionally the topic contains far more information than would be appropriate as an insert into either or both men's articles. Kershner 01:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a genuine historical event, and a decently documented and footnoted one. As far as significance, I think the article does a decent job of expressing that in context. -Markeer 01:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A significant event that deserves an article. --Bduke 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be redundant to have a full account in both biographies. This is one of the more famous wagers in science, and very well known in the field of population, peak oil, etc. It is notable and verifiable. -Will Beback 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a layman (in political science and economics at least), and I've heard of this; it represents a significant empirical check to Malthusian "millenialism," so to speak, and seems worthy of mention. Choess 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sometimes a bet between scientists is notable, such as the between Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne and John Preskill regarding evaporating black holes. Tachyon01 04:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Query I am not familiar with that particular bet, can you point me to an article that goes into greater detail on that subject? ... Point proven. :) (And I'm serious about desiring more information) Kershner 04:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could make it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's odd that there's no article on it, and it's only mentioned briefly in the John Preskill article. The only thing I remember is that Hawking was betting only as an insurance policy: he very much wanted black holes to exist, and figured betting against their existance would provide some minor consolation if they did not, in fact, exist. When Hawking admitted defeat (thereby accepting the existance of black holes) he awarded Kip a year's subscription to Playboy. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 12:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Found the article: Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet Kershner 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - My mistake: the bet I was thinking of was just between him and Thorne, and is mentioned in the Hawking article just below the one mentioned above. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 20:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't see any major problems with the article. David L Rattigan 08:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wish Ehrlich would'vr stuck to butterflies. His scaremongering has done more harm than good. -- GWO
Keep, extremely notable, easily verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable historical event (anecdotally, I've even seen a blurb about this event in an economic textbook), but (rightly) contains too much detail to be integrated into the primary articles about the principal actors in the event. -- Docether 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (almost Conan-like) Keep. Notable only to fans of Simon or Ehrlich.? Notable well beyond that narrow spectrum; it was a significant prediction of the impact of 'Reaganomics' and the economic situation of the time, and culturally significant. Umm ... (calms down) ... also per above keeps. Colon el Tom 13:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, event is notable, verifiable, this topic is encyclopedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable historical event. SJennings 14:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a notable event which people might actually want to research. —M e ts501^talk 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I'd be extremely open to a rename (Simon-Ehrlich wager, perhaps). This is a hugely notable bet. I saw a documentary about it in a geography course I took this term. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I second the rename. Kershner 19:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per Savisan. ~ trialsanderrors 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict?) Keep and rename. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per savisan. redfox 22:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Rename. Absolutely not fancruft as suggested by nom Bwithh 23:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 – Gurch 22:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bum Rushing

Non-notable term. May be hoax King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already covered at Wiktionary under bum rush. Peyna 01:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Move to Wiktionary. This is a legitimate and common slang term used by many gamers to describe exactly the behavior noted. That does not justify a Wikipedia article but it does belong in a dictionary under the verb 'to Bum Rush'. At some point the original meaning of the term (as per much of slang and gamer-speak) was lost in favor of this meaning. Kershner 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the original meaning of the phrase "Bum's rush (quickly and/or forcibly removed from the premises as if one were a 'bum') has been lost except to those under the age of 16. At any rate, I didn't see much difference between what this article describes and the more succinct definition covered at the Wiktionary article I linked, except that they're applying that definition to the world of video games. Peyna 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikitionary. Tachyon01 04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is absolutely not a hoax. It's a legitimate tactic. The term is used in popular culture - see Yo! Bum Rush the Show, an album by Public Enemy. The article needs a cleanup. If it survives AfD I'll clean it up myself. - Richardcavell 05:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~transwiki~~ delete as below -- GWO
Delete and do not transwiki. There's already an article there, at bum rush. Please don't treat Wiktionary as a dumping ground. Proto||type 12:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article far exceeds the wiktionary entry in scope and definition, and has various cultural significances. By the way, I've added PE's album to the article's introduction. Colon el Tom 13:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than a dicdef, but article needs to be cleanup. Bum Rush has been used in pop culture as what Richardcavell said. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically just consisting of the same definition written several times and a couple of specific examples. —M e ts501^talk 16:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much more than dictdef, and already present at wikt:bum rush. Reference to video games is probably WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not agree more with Proto. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I would have said transwiki to Wiktionary, but it's already there. Reyk _YO! 20:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable term, but the is essentially a dictionary definition. Ace of Sevens 09:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Proto and Peyna; dicdef. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a non-notable dicdef. By the way, in my region it's called a "bomb rush". Grand master ka 04:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN dicdef Deleuze 14:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Royboy crashfan 01:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Longhurst

fails to assert notability, vanity page? Almost no information. Adambiswanger1 01:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for little or no content, besides no assertion of notability NawlinWiki 01:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy. If it does not assert notability, feel free to put a {{db-bio}} tag on it instead of AfD. Peyna 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Total Wine & More. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Beverage

Not notable company, does not meet WP:Corp, the only reason I have heard of it is because I used to live in Maryland. MilesToGo 01:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a real store. If this were a store in the Star Trek universe, it would be speedily kept. Let's keep this if only to help prevent fiction from becoming more important than reality in Wikipedia. Erik the Rude 03:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Total Wine & More. Company does no exist anymore so a merge rather than keep. - Peripitus (Talk) 04:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Peripitus. JIP | Talk 08:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Total Wine & More, defunct companies are not exactly notable in its own article, unless they were a multinational corporation. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. —M e ts501^talk 17:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Kotepho 07:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Wine & More

looks like advertisement to me Yoghurt 23:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "one of the the largest independent fine wine retailer in the United States and is the only fine wine company that operates in multiple states" would make it notable if that can be backed up. —Cuivi é nen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 00:37 UTC
Keep. Notable enough. Stores in numerous US states, press coverage in The Miami Herald. dbtfz ^talk 04:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dbtfz. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dbtfz. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 15:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, and block creator indefinitely. DS 02:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Kluver

Delete hoax deprodded by creator. Zero google hits for "Quadratic Relativity Theory". - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per nom, nonsense.--Andeh 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy. We need a {{db-hoax}} since nonsense doesn't really apply. Peyna 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference: "Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes." Peyna 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. --Bill (who is cool!) 01:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super Crazy Awesome Speedy Delete...per nom...Yanksox 02:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prodded this (as it doesn't qualify for a speedy) but I'm not gonna' fight about it if it does go speedily. Kotepho 02:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's not CSD. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy removed since it's not applicable. Nice little article but unfortunately all false. After spending considerable time researching Kara Kluver (well one minute on google), I've determined that she is 18 from Oregon. Here is her Myspace page [5]. Strangely enough there is no discussion there of her many accomplishments. Way to go KK... --JJay 02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Longhurst}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Beverage}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Wine & More}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara Kluver}}