Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 24

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Improv (talk | contribs) at 08:09, 24 December 2006 (+chimurito). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 23 December 25 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:05Z

VIP Passport

VIP Passport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
  • As of 23 Dec 2006, there is no listing for VIP Passport at TV Guide. [1]
  • VIP Passport is also not listed at Fox's website (where the article says the show premiered). [2]
  • There is no IMDB page for VIP Passport. IMDB has a page for pretty much every television show, no matter how small or short-lived.
  • Official websites for TV shows (especially syndicated shows) always have a list of when the show is on and on what channel. Not so over at VIP Passport. [3]
  • There is no website for the production company, Lux Entertainment.
  • There's no review of VIP Passport on variety.com or hollywoodreporter.com - seldom do both entertainment trade papers fail to review (or refuse to review) a television series.
  • I'm not sure what to make of this. Was this an infomercial maybe? It certainly doesn't bear any of the hallmarks of a TV show (industry trade reviews, listings, IMDB page, etc.). TruthGal 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:08Z

Give My Regards To Broadway (Disney Channel Movie)

Give My Regards To Broadway (Disney Channel Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keeps being recreated with unsourced information about a DCOM. Has been deleted numerous times, I think it should be deleted and protected from being recreated. I have it currently Redirecting to Give My Regards to Broadway. Even IMDB doesn't have a list for Give My Regards To Broadway. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather difficult to assess the article as it is currently just a redirect page - this is similar to what happened last time.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked on IMDB and googled it and nothing came up. and the creator of the article changes the actors every day. the movie either doesn't exist or is so far from coming out it doesn't belong here either. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough!--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete WP:SNOW. Full agreement with the statement on the first AFD: this isn't worth a 5-day discussion.--Húsönd 04:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Oats

Captain Oats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This was deleted after an expired {{prod}} placed after the first AFD, which makes it a contested PROD. The original rationale was "fancruft, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This is a procedural nomination, so no opinion. Coredesat 01:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then lemme change that :P --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:11Z

Chicken slacks

Chicken slacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Reads like a dictionary entry. WP:NOT#DICT may be applicable here. Navou talk 01:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Lucky Number Slevin. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:12Z

Slevin Kelevra

Slevin Kelevra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Doesn't deserve its own page, says nothing not found on the Lucky Number Slevin page. Delete and redirect. ChronicallyUninspired 01:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge This case is covered by a specific section WP:FICT, which states:
  1. Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.
  2. Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.
    The difference between 'major' and 'minor' characters is intentionally vague; the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character. Some books could plausibly have several dozen major characters.
This article clearly states that "Slevin Kelevra is the main protagonist in the movie, Lucky Number Slevin. How could the protagonist be a minor role? The nominator has missed the fact that this is the main character, who is not only mentioned specifically at the Lucky Number Slevin page, but his name is also in the title. Perhaps the author of the article is being unclear; however, poor writing style is not grounds for deletion.
Has the article about the movie become too large to the point that the main character deserves a separate article?
There is no discussion as to how many films in which a character should appear inorder to be notable. The question is whether the character is Major or Minor, and in either case deletion is not an option. At least the subject should receive a merge and redirect.

--Kevin Murray 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of saying "delete" is that the Slevin Kelevra article provides no additional insight or information not provided in the Lucky Number Slevin article. In fact, the article in question here does nothing more than name the character and then go on to provide a plot synopsis of the movie, rather than providing information that extends beyond the scope of the movie. Since the movie's article provides a much more detailed plot synopsis, this article can safely be deleted, perhaps with a redirect, as the original AfD nomination states. I stand by my earlier vote of Delete. --DachannienTalkContrib 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are bringing new information to the discussion. If the article adds no value than it should be redirected, but that should be examined and discussed. --Kevin Murray 16:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After rereading both articles, I refute Dachannien's comment about the redundancy of the two articles. However, in both cases the articles break the guidelines regarding articles containing extensive restatements of the plots. I think that a well thoughtout merge is in order. As my suggestion was to keep or merge, I would more strongly advocate a merge predicated on a complete rewrite of the Lucky Number Slevin article. Short of someone taking on that task, I would advocate a keep in the mean time. --Kevin Murray 16:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and redirect to Singapore. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:13Z

Statistics of Singapore

Statistics of Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Contested prod. MER-C 01:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Guity Novin. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:48Z

Transpressionism

Transpressionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There are no credible citations to indicate that there is, in fact, an "artistic movement." Googling the term comes up with Wikipedia, our mirrors, and several sites directly related to the artist.Bastiq▼e demandez 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This heavy-handedness is uncalled for -- Especially in Wikipedia. Why you eradicate every reference to Transpressionism? See the talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.87.152 (talk • contribs).Virtually all contributions Transpressionism-related.
  • I would call this an artist's manifesto. It is interesting. In fact, it is very interesting. But I don't think it deserves a page of it's own. I think it should either be moved to the artist's page, or, if it is available somewhere else on the Internet, it should be clearly linked to from the artist's page. Ideally, an editor would boil down the ideas and present them to a reader in the article about the artist, on the artist's page. But I am not up to that task. Bus stop 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not artist's manifesto. This is an article about Transpressionism. Given that Stuckism (that was established in 1999, i.e. five years after the introduction of Transpressionism)has an entry ofit's own Idon't see the reason for hostility towards Transpressionism. Incidently, beside Stuckism there are other more recent movements like Transavantguardia, Neue Wilde and the School of London that have been obviously influenced by Transpressionism.140.80.199.91 18:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no hostility towards Transpressionism (if anything, this page shows interest in it), simply an observation that so far it has not been shown to meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. It does not appear to have any widespread notability, as evidenced by mentions in acceptable sources. Movements with articles such as Stuckism can be verified through 40,000 google hits and mainstream media mentions. It is certainly not an evaluation of the intrinsic worth or otherwise artistically of Transpressionism. Tyrenius 02:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. It is not an artist's manifesto. I know I read some interesting things in it that seemed more than slightly relevant to what I see as relevant concerns in the visual arts. I saw value in it. I didn't thoroughly study it. I would probably not agree with all of it, if I read and studied it in it's entirety. I just wanted to say it addressed concerns in visual art in the times in which we live. I don't know what an artist's manifesto is. It just seemed like it might be one to me. I like it. I think it should be linked to, from the artist's page, if it is not notable enough to warrant it's own page. And it certainly deserves restating in layman's terms. That is one of the tasks of an editor. An editor serves as a bridge between a likely reader and a piece of source material that may not be readily comprehensible to a likely reader. I don't think the primary issue is whether or not it deserves inclusion on this page or on the artist's page. The most useful thing would be a digesting and restating of the article about Transpressionism. I know that I would be interested in reading such an article. This is problem that doesn't only afflict this article. Most visual art movements and styles are afflicted by unclarity. That should be addressed by an editor. Bus stop 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep -- Far too many Internet sock puppet: Meat puppet interventions!! Transpressionism was introduced in 1994-1996. Stuckism, New Wilde, Transavantguardism, School of London, and Re-Modernism were introduced about 5 to 10 years later, all of which were influenced by Transpressionism. Think of what is to be gained by deletion of this page? You cannot succeed in rewriting the history. 24.81.86.162 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tyrenius or more aptly Tyranness, is the person who has started many articles on stuckism in Wiki (see her/his user page) In that page he/she claims -- perhaps with all honesty he/she could master:

I find, not infrequently, that I am editing (and sometimes starting) articles which do not have any prior personal interest for me. I also find that I am inserting edits, with which I may personally disagree or may not believe. This is in order to work towards a comprehensive, informative, authoritative and balanced encyclopedia.

Here are his other articles related to stuckism: Spectrum London the first West End commercial gallery to show the Stuckists, Go West the title of the first Stuckist artists exhibition, Stuckist demonstrations,Stuckism Photography, Art manifesto according to the article the Stuckists have made particular use of this to start worldwide movement of affiliated groups,Michael Dickinson He is a member of the Stuckist movement, and many more -- so much for being disinterested in a topic!!.I wonder what Stuckists think of meatpuppets? 24.81.86.162 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My particular interest is contemporary UK art. You don't need to search out the articles I've started (mainly on Stuckism, Turner Prize nominees, YBAs and FBA artists). They are on my user page. You seem to have missed out quite a few. Regarding "his articles", see WP:OWN. I suggest you also have a look at WP:NPA as you're currently violating it, as well as checking out what a meatpuppet actually is. Your observations are irrelevant as to whether this article should or should not be deleted. It will be judged in its own right. You would be better off finding reliable sources to VERIFY it. Tyrenius 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:53Z

SecretPenguin

SecretPenguin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

"Street art campaign" and apparently now a "design shop". Prod removed without comment by author in August, hasn't been back since. No evidence of importance for either venture, google turns up plenty of mirrors, screennames and boards but not much else. Deizio talk 02:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:54Z

Raiffeisen Observation Tower

Raiffeisen Observation Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Empty article about a 35m observation tower. Previous AfD had 1 keep !vote but was rather poorly attended. No indication of significance. German Wiki article doesn't seem to reveal its significance either but goes into a bit more detail about its height, location, nearby towers, zzzzzzzzz... Deizio talk 02:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been expanded with translation from de-wiki. Seems my German skills are still pretty tight. Deizio talk 17:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Gelegotis Memorial Bridge

Paul J. Gelegotis Memorial Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A bridge of no notability. Created by a single-purpose account, given the way it reads likely an associate of Mr Gelegotis. Almost no ghits for Mr Gelegotis [5] and even fewer for "his" bridge. The google links indicate this was a suggested name for the bridge but not that the name was finally chosen. Akihabara 03:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bridgecruft. It would be nice if another wiki for this kind of stuff existed though. --Improv 08:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument that the namesake is not-notable is irrelevant. This article is about a physical structure and this evaluation should hinge on that alone. Unfortunately most of the Deletes above are based on the original premis which is severely flawed. I propose that further research be done to verify that the bridge is notable, and if not the discussion for deletion should resume. --Kevin Murray 01:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE THAT AS OF 02:03, 25 December 2006 THIS ARTICLE WAS COMPLETELY REWRITTEN WITH MULTIPLE NONTRIVIAL REFERENCES --Kevin Murray 02:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:55Z

Rob Sanderson

Rob Sanderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Subject does not meet WP:BIO or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 03:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 11:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troxel

Troxel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A college intramural team. De-prodded by an IP address without comment. - IceCreamAntisocial 04:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No Consensus. This is not the appropriate venue to hash-out notability guidelines regarding schools. ---J.S (T/C) 20:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Ridge Junior High School

Desert Ridge Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-noteworthy junior high school. Only sources are the school itself and a directory; I'm unable to find anything with Google News or Lexis-Nexis. Attempt to redirect to the school district was reverted as "vandalism," so I'm now bringing it here. Shimeru 04:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am going to try and improve it a little. While it is simply a middle school, it hurts nothing to have information about the subject. So there should be no reason to delete unless the school is written with such POV that there is no hope of fixing, or as stated above, consensus has been reached. My two cents. KnightLago 16:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. -Docg 01:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Headley

Chase Headley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Minor league baseball player. Speedy deletion overturned at Deletion Review, now listed here for full consideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what do these stories say? Well, "surpassed Todd Helton for most walks in a single-season in Tennessee baseball history."; "Top prospect in Padres organization"; "former college standout at the University of Tennessee"; "He's a poster child for being a baseball player"... AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here, I expanded the article, added all those links to the article as in-line references, and found a fully free picture. He's actually an interesting guy, using his mental abilities (he was his high school valedictorian and an academic all-American in college) to make up for not being quite as physical as some of his peers. Please look at it again, folks. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No vote. I relisted this debate on the grounds that AnonEMouse's edits may have saved this from deletion, given the last three opinions after the rewrite. So, I give this back to the community to re-evaluate. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AnonEMouse's links. --- RockMFR 07:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know much of anything about baseball, so to me the difference between "major league" and "minor league" isn't relavent (and appears to be a purely subjective judgment). What's important is the fact that this person has been noted by the media on several occassions, which qualifies them per WP:BIO. Tarinth 09:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Mouse. I loathe baseball (except as a soporific), but I can't dispute that it's notable, and the refs seem to demonstrate that this fellow is too. Xtifr tälk 10:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per anonemouse. Incidentally, good work mouse. You really put a lot of effort into analyzing this article and not just giving it a cursory glance. Quadzilla99 11:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rewrite demonstrates notability. Oldelpaso 15:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even with the work by the Mouse. I don't really think minor league players are notable, but this player hasn't even played AAA ball. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A minor-league player? Lowers the bar of WP:N or WP:BIO to meaninglessness. And before badlydrawnjeff cuts-and-pastes his standard reply, perhaps he could cite the specific portions --plural -- of WP:BIO that this meets, other than the techinality of "fully professional"? --Calton | Talk 23:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not Jeff, but if I could? The main part of WP:N, featured in external sources. In WP:BIO it reads: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."
I have to admit, I don't know anything about playing in the minor leagues, if someone says it's not notable, I can't argue with them. But I do know about multiple independent published works. He's got them. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Mattuck

Arthur Mattuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

MIT professor. Prior discussion overturned at Deletion Review, now listed here for full consideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 00:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John C. A. Bambenek

John C. A. Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Columnist with contested syndication status. Prior deletion overturned at Deletion Review due to new information, now listed here for full consideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. -- ChrisPerardi 05:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note According to a quick lexis search and his bio website he's been syndicated by U-Wire, Nextex (I'm not sure what that is) and Advance Publications. Self-Syndication means that instead of an agency selling your column, you do it yourself. The end result is the same to the end reader, they read a column, there is just no agent taking half the fees. -- ChrisPerardi 15:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment ... that's why syndication alone is not notability. He's put it out for syndication, but what notable publications have published him? (And I do NOT mean "quoted him") --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as he seems almost notable, but in DRV it was noted that his column is "self-syndicated, meaning he posts it many place" -- this is not notability. Being widely quoted is not by itself notability, it just indicates aggressiveness getting on reporters' rolodexes. The books are a maybe -- they might pass the review test or not. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bleh, it is not any significant syndication. show us numbers to convince us of notability. --Buridan 13:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is read by many in a number of very well-known publications. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Artcle says his columns have appeared in the LA Times and Washington Post. I just did a search of John C. A. Bambenek at both sites. Nothing current written by John C. A. Bambenek at the LA Times, and nothing in their archives written by him. Nothing current written by ohn C. A. Bambenek at the Washington Post, and nothing in their archives written by him. He's a college newspaper columnist which is not notable enough for a Wiki entry.TruthGal 15:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirmed. The sentence "His commentary has appeared in the Washington Post and the L.A. Times." is resume puffery -- he has been quoted, as a "SANS researcher", in both publications. His "syndication" is a crock, and his highest post in "journalism career" is assistant editor of a blog. --Dhartung | Talk 18:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ChrisPerardi. Heavily read syndicated columnist and writer in multiple publications. --Oakshade 17:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No evidence of being a significant syndicated columnist; Fails WP:V. Contributor to a few technical books is not evidence of encyclopedic notability. In general, the rticle reads like resume puffery as per Dhartung Bwithh 19:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that article is still wholly unsourced. The question whether/how he was syndicated seems ancillary as long as the main question, whether his claims to notability can be backed with independent sources, is unanswered. ~ trialsanderrors 19:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search on Amazon.com turns up no publications by John Bambenek. The Washington Post article is a one line quote. I don't see any evidence as to where he is syndicated "since 2006" - and 100,000 circulation is, like, 3 or 4 suburban community papers. This guy is a publicity hound. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 19:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Has anyone even TRIED looking at lexis... here's a quick list of references...
    • This also entirely fails to address his information security expertise. The books are real, the ISBN's are verified, if you want to see the contributors to the book, you can see these links... here and the books can be bought here. It skips past the fact he was invited to a conference sponsored, in part, by the Dept. of Homeland Security, his presentation is here. He's been quoted far and wide in that capacity and here and here for starters (and that's not including several foreign sites that talk about his research), including be interviewed on several radio programs. If people have a problem with the way something is written, but all means edit. However, he was mentioned in 4 different Wikipedia articles before this page was even created. That at least suggests notability. -- ChrisPerardi 20:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Searching the SANS site, I was unable to find any of these publications for sale, except for the ones he is listed (in this article) as only a contributor to. I suspect the others are at best "white papers". If you do a search on "Bambenek" on the SANS site, you get one hit, where he is thanked for helping to prepare a tutorial. And, by the way, ChrisPerardi has made virtually no Wikipedia edits unrelated to John Bembenek. --Brianyoumans 22:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further Comment - Of the long list of references above, a number of them no longer work, and the rest consist mostly of him being quoted as a representative of SANS. He does seem to have some very minor notability for discovering a minor security flaw in Mozilla in December 2005. But as far as I can tell, none of the articles is actually about Bambenek or centers on his work. --Brianyoumans 22:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody's saying the books aren't real (although some of them appear to be more white papers than books), but WP:BIO has a slightly higher standard. Most of those books are published by SANS, his employer. Several of the quotes have him acting as a spokesman for SANS, or his blog posts are quoted on various bugs. Making a presentation to a conference is normal for a researcher, not something unusual. --Dhartung | Talk 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I am saying that those publications are not books. Two of them are brief white papers, one is self-published (his website), and the ones with the SANS name match the name of SANS-sponsored classes given at conferences, so it's possible he is the "author" of the courseware, but he isn't credited anywhere that passes WP:V, so I have commented them out. I'm not going to check all the "contributor" claims, but he is not a published book author as the article was clearly written to suggest. --Dhartung | Talk 22:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a lot of dodgy stuff is being put forward to assert his notability.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not convinced of notability per Dmz5. Akihabara 00:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above.Oo7565 06:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, per evidence by Dhartung, et al. -Will Beback · † · 18:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 03:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Protect page from recreation. I am the subject of this article and I endorse deletion, not because I really care what the semi-literate masses that waste time on Wikipedia think is notable (see Bubb Rubb to see how ridiculous the notability standard is) but because the Wikipedia model is garbage and prone to vandalize, slander and libel. Remove this page and prevent it's recreation. -- JohnBambenek 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Hello, I'd like to note I'm the actual Chris Perardi. I make all my edits under the username User:perardi. (Although I've been inactive as of late.) I'd just like to state, for the record, I've not been involved in any of this. My contact e-mails are 'chris AT perardi.com' and 'perardi AT uiuc.edu'. perardi 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notable as my left sock. Danny Lilithborne 05:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Syndication implies notability in the sense that I use the term, but by no stretch does my definition cover this. -Amarkov blahedits 05:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - seems to fail WP:V, and WP:BIO is in question. That the article subject doesn't want to be covered is ironic, because notariety would argue to the page's inclusion. Still, much of the text seems lifted from the other site. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 05:59Z

Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada)

Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Prior deletion overturned at Deletion Review, now listed here for full consideration. Note that there are two school with similar names. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peak rest test

Peak rest test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

I tagged it for notability. I became suspicious when noticing this article is one of only two contributions of creator. Noted it gets practically zero non-wiki ghits. Nominate for deletion based on non-notability and a possibly made up term. Akihabara 04:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's all well and good, but do you have any evidence this isn't made up? Why redirect when it seems to be an unused term? I couldn't find it in your linked article, and that would only be a single usage. Akihabara 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment reply Look at [22], and search in page for Peak-Rest Tests. It's a ways down. The concept seems valid, though I wonder if it exists under another name. Argyriou (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:03Z

APAULED

APAULED (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete: Seems like a hoax to me. The G4 article doesn't mention it. The Entertainment company site has an empty framework. The show site loads for a long time and then just displays a logo. The kid's blog is juvenile. In any case, not notable, since "apauled g4" gets only 64 Google hits, many referring to the G4 computer. While you are at it, delete the "Apauled" redirect link. Hu 04:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message for Hu & others: Apauled is not a hoax; although it a hoax show airing on G4. To respond to Hu’s comments, the G4 article doesn't mention Apauled because the G4 article doesn’t list shows that are airing as interstitials throughout the schedule. The Entertainment company site does not have an empty framework, please see for yourself. The show site doesn’t load for a long time and then just displays a logo; please see for yourself. Please re-consider your comments above.

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:05Z

Anglo-saxon warfare

Anglo-saxon warfare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Content is entirely the result of original research. ju66l3r 05:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this needs to be kept, and expanded upon, according to the spirit of Wikipedia's open source method. It is a very important topic for understanding English pre-conquest history. Kozushi 07:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you are the the author, I would suggest you wikify this article, add references and link it to articles where the subject is pertinent, such as History of Anglo-Saxon England. If it fits in to the overall scheme and is useful, then I could change my position, and others might too. As it stands it's just an orphan essay. England has lots and lots of articles, I'm probably more aggrieved about various English hoax (my, English schoolkids just love a good practical joke), nn football club and petrol station articles that have to be constantly deleted than this one, which on a second glance at least could serve a useful purpose rather than being yet more Anglocruft. Tubezone 11:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although this period of warfare probably merits a military history article, there wasn't much that was unique to the Anglo-Saxons. It's essayish, and the bits derived from contemporary poetry/historical epics are original research. Some of the rest could be properly sourced, but again, the scope is probably wrong. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given that anglo-saxon... is a historical contrivance to describe a somewhat diverse group of people with different habits and practices... this article is either OR or non-encyclopedic. --Buridan 13:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep noting that some of the above appear to be statements of odd POV. This topic is particularly important for the period up to and including Hastings, and the difference in approaches at that crucial battle was very important. England is hardly the front-runner in terms of irrelevant cruft, and this topic is far from irrelevant. A primary source is not original research, there probably should be more requirement for them.FasterPussycatWooHoo 14:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but expand, and add some citations and references. This is a rather relevant important topic in English military history. I would suggest AFDing articles such as non notable English diners, pubs, and amateur football clubs too, if there's a constant complaint abt too much England related articles. =) -Advanced 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - --Bryson 19:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is unsourced. It could well deserve an article, when that section elsewhere becomes too large. However, on the other hand, I can find no information on the matter elsewhere in Wikipedia. Although this particular article should be deleted unless sources can be provided, I am going to try and find an appropriate WikiProject and contact them on the matter. J Milburn 20:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject matter is worthy. This text will not be useless to someone who wishes to improve it. Disputes about the content of the article are not matters for AfD. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here isn't content, it's what's lacking, like sources, links and organisation. There's at least 20 articles on Anglo-Saxon England, another 30 in Category:Battles of the Anglo-Saxons, this article should fit in with those articles and be linked to and from them in some logical manner. Tubezone 00:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by User:Grutness (CSD A7). --- RockMFR 06:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North shropshire methodist youth choir

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

The result was redirect. --- RockMFR 05:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The legend of zelda twilight princess

The legend of zelda twilight princess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

There's already a page called "The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess! Redirect to there. Bigtop 05:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Vercher

Heath Vercher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable mucisian, sounds like a bit of a con artist!--Edchilvers 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tried to find more information about him, but so far, have been unable. It is quite likely that his "borrowing" of another artist's music may be the most notable thing he ever does. His music on his new album is pretty, but it doesn't sound very special to me. I agree with deletion on the grounds that he, for himself is not truly notable yet.VBlack 06:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --- RockMFR 05:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:06Z

The Armenian Kingdom of Mitanni

The Armenian Kingdom of Mitanni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a POV fork, which Wikipedia:Content forking says may be deleted. Merge was a suggestion, however there is nothing in this article which is not in Mitanni itself which is cited by a reliable source and thus worth saving. Thanatosimii 06:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one problem with that is that the pov fork was created to promulgate the view that Mitanni was Armenia; a claim that the editors responsible have been incapable of substantiating with even one reliable source for citation. Thus, no redirect is probably a better idea, because "Armenian Kingdom of Mitanni," lest so much as one source can be produced, is POV propoganda to begin with. Thanatosimii 06:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be fine and good except the details are patently false. The editors who created this page tried to insert these details into a number of established articles and had their changes removed by editors who demanded citations by reliable sources. A month or so later, they have yet to produce one reliable source. Because they couldn't insert their stuff in the real pages because they can't cite it with reliable sources, they make up pov-forks among other things. Thanatosimii 16:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The details are NOT false these come from scholars and historians and books they wrote and published its not accepted among many scholars because historians can barely trace back Armenia to urartu and going further confuses the history but i think deleting it is good. Nareklm 02:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scholars, historians, and books"- This is exactly why it's a false page. No citations from reliable sources; not one, despite requests for them for a month now. Your response is a case in point example of why the page has to be deleted. Thanatosimii 04:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay? Do you want text from the book? Nareklm 04:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the appropriate venue. You have already had one month to provide reliable sources. Thanatosimii 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One month? When was this? Nareklm 04:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been one month or so since this stuff began being put all over ANE pages, and it has been met at every turn with a request for Reliable Sources. Thanatosimii 04:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but you never gave me a month Ararat arev and me are diffrent people. Nareklm 04:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits have also been in the same way removed on at least one occasion. Thanatosimii 04:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? These historians are real and they have fascinating books if you reject this theory thats your opinion but basing on facts and evidence they recovered alot of this is true. You can go buy the book and read it. Your edits and Dacy's are similar also, and Ararat and me are not the only people in the world who see this as history the mitanni kingdom of armenia these are all evidence and documents recovered in the Armenian highland. You obviously reject this for some reason and mentioning these are important its part of mitanni history i assume these historians just made it up. They even gave lectures in Boston a while ago. Historians, Scholars, Books those are all reliable and i never knew giving reliable sources has a deadline.
Nobody says that these so called "historians" don't exist, they sure do. It's just that they are a fringe minority that nobody really takes seriously :)-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 05:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted Metros232 15:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Mullaney

Norbert Mullaney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Nominated by User:198.14.75.15 per "this person is wholly unremarkable." I have no opinion. --- RockMFR 06:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 16:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madlyn-Ann C. Woolwich

Madlyn-Ann C. Woolwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO considerably. Only 601 ghits and 371 yhits. Sr13 (T|C) 06:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems like a big fish in the small pond of pastelists - two books published, articles, gives workshops, president of an online group of pastelists, and so on. I'd be happier if I saw some museum holdings, probably pastels don't get much respect in the art world. --Brianyoumans 19:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she appears to be notable and is published, the fact that the circles she travels in don't generate a lot of coverage or attract a lot of attention shouldn't be used against her.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete When I did a Google search for her, I only got 3 hits, one of them being the Wikipedia page.[23]. A Google Image search came up with zero pages. How would I buy a painting of hers even if I wanted to? Shouldn't a notable artist return at least one image on Google Image search? TruthGal 03:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure people do Google checks correctly. I get quite a few more than 3, and far fewer than 600! Using various restrictions ("woolwich pastelist", "woolwich pastel", "woolwich madlyn pastel" etc.) the numbers fluctuate between ~50 and ~150 (this is because a ghits result may say 150 up front but when you check last page there's often a note that they're showing you x of y (total) because the rest are "very similar" i.e. duplicates. Her two books appear to have been published by reputable "arts and crafts" publishers: North Light Books (869 LC records) and Watson-Guptill Publications (1758 LC records). That said, I take no position because I'm not sure of her "notability" in the art world or the standing of the various societys she's a member/leader of. --RCEberwein | Talk 13:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how I did my Google Search: "Madlyn-Ann Crawford Woolwich" [24]TruthGal 18:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:08Z

Upcoming Bollywood films

Upcoming Bollywood films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Rory096 06:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Bueno Nacho. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:12Z

Chimurito

Chimurito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A fictional food in a children's TV show. Not notable. Improv 08:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naco (nacho/taco) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_24&oldid=96244043"