Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 23

< January 22 January 24 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] January 23

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. It appears that the keep voters may have had a different, more notable 411 band in mind, and this one does not meet WP standards of notability. —Cleared as filed. 02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 411 (band)

Don't see anything that meets notability under WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 20:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. 411 is a very popular band in the United States, and should be of sufficient importance to have an article. -Rory096 20:40, 23 January 2006 I thought this was 311, my mistake. Rory096 01:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The band 411 is notable and popular. --Lockley 21:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The band does have an allmusic reference, just not an extensive one.  (aeropagitica)  21:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Weak Delete and Redirect to The 411. If they were notable, I would think that they would show up on more than just a few Wikipedia mirrors.[1] â€” TheKMantalk 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    (Not to be confused with 311 (band)) â€” TheKMantalk 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. incog 01:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because it got an article/interview from the BBC [2], which meets the needs of WP:MUSIC. It's the first google hit on 411 band, so this article should be kept and rewritten to reflect the notable British band. I didn't see the disambig on the page when I looked and rewrote this entry. Redirect to The 411. --badlydrawnjeff 14:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Redirect per badlydrawnjeffYoungamerican 17:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a note that the 411 in the current article is not the same 411 Badlydrawnjeff was speaking about. — TheKMantalk 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The 411. I suspect that the keep voters may have had the more notable band in mind. Chick Bowen 02:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't appear that The 411 is the same as the band we're discussing, as The 411 is made up of women and is British, while the 411 in this article is male and from California. -Rory096 05:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:MUSIC guideline is two albums; they had one. Unless they had an international tour, major venues, heavy rotation, awards, etc. But no sign of that in the article or in a quick Google lookup. Unless Dan O'Mahony is notable. But he's redlinked. And he first comes up at the fourteenth spot on Google, behind a Dan O'Mahony who is a library staffer at Brown University, and several other Dan O'Mahonys. Do NOT make it a redirect, there are already articles 411 and 411 (disambiguation). Herostratus 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as nn-band. Mushroom 08:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A War of the Roses

Non-notable band Avi 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per A7 - bandity article. – Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom Avi 00:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band. Ruby 00:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete NN-Band --Lightdarkness 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7 Blnguyen 01:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete kjetil_r 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete HasNoClue 03:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn band. --Terence Ong 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable band, no claim to notability. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-23 08:50Z
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 Urban exploration. -- Jonel | Speak 01:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abandoned hotel

This is WP:NOR original research (and maybe WP:NFT) so Delete.Obina 22:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete for reasons given Vegaswikian 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Urban exploration. While this articles contents right now are uncited and there's no point to merging really, it seems like a useful redirect. --W.marsh 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per W.marsh --Muchness 23:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Urban exploration per W.marsh, that's the ticket. --Lockley 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Urban exploration. incog 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No apparent relevance to anything real-world. Denni ☯ 02:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect/merge as per incog. This is not to be construed as a keep vote. Stifle 11:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, merge only the first sentence. If abandoned hotels are becoming scarcer, it is because of the general trend toward revitalizations of downtowns; eminent domain laws have not changed (other than the recent SCOTUS ruling, which would not affect abandoned properties anyway). Chick Bowen 02:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The first sentence is unsourced opinion / original research like the rest of the article.Obina 00:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I guess I only meant the first clause of the first sentence, but in any case, Obina is right. Chick Bowen 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Sceptre (Talk) 11:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Bello

un-notability Melaen 16:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, then, as nn-bio. You don't need to use AfD for that. Stifle 16:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Subject was portrayed by a fairly major actor (Vincent Pastore) in The Hurricane, an Oscar-nominated biopic of Rubin Carter. Needs cleanup, but might meet criteria for notability. -Colin Kimbrell 16:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 13:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as per Colin. Needs editing, but does assert notability. Robin Johnson 14:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important figure in notorious criminal case, mentioned in Dylan song, etc. Clearly much more notable than a woman who "married" a dolphin, a college dorm stripper, and Kadee Strickland (to name only a few whose notability has been strongly. if not always successfully, argued.) Monicasdude 15:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to the Hurricane Carter page, since this is his only claim to fame. --Lockley 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Anybody mentioned in a Bob Dylan song isn't an nn-bio. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 02:10, Jan. 29, 2006


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as repost (already userfied). Mushroom 15:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alireza Rahimi Boroujerdi

This was deleted before here. However, with so few votes I didn't find that I could delete this again despite it being repeatedly recreated. I believe it should be deleted because it is by no means notable and then deleted page should be added. gren グレン ? 10:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note: this content is also substantially reproduced at the User page of the creator, Rahimiboroujerdi.

  • Comment, it would look like a keep based on the 17 books published part, if someone can verify that. The only mentions about that I could find were on his personal website. There are only 22 hits in google for "Rahimi Boroujerdi", 4 for the arabic version of the name. (and don't vote for userfy, it's already on the creator's userpage) - Bobet 12:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep some references, some notable third world people are likely to fail the google test. All the books he published were in Iran as said on his site [3], and probably wouldnt turn up on google if they werent distributed in the west -- Astrokey44|talk 15:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, did you look at all the references? All but one are from his personal websites, and the last one (from the university he works at) doesn't mention him doing anything notable. Essentially, it's one person saying he's done things (the page was started by User:Rahimiboroujerdi), using himself as a reference. - Bobet 19:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep His departmental website certifies his books and publications [4]. Dlyons493 Talk 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dlyons493. - Bobet 21:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{db-repost}}, then add {{deletedpage}}. No third-party references, i.e. references not controlled by Mr. Boroujerdi or his employer. Stifle 12:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy No, not userfy (which would be my normal solution), speedy delete as repost and WP:AUTO. I checked his talk page and nobody had bothered to tell him why what he was doing was wrong, not even using the standard {{welcome}}. So, yes this should be speedied as a repost, but really, folks, we need to be a bit more careful not to bite even in obvious cases of autobiography. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AlterVistas

Vanity article about a non-notable website (Alexa rank 300,000). Created by two students over the summer of 2000. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-23 15:59Z

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. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A•M Valve Company, LLC

NN irrigation business, advertising MNewnham 15:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — Advert. Kareeser|Talk! 16:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. Stifle 12:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Populist Renaissance

Non-notable "political party" "formed" last year. The few Google hits include its own website, Wikipedia mirrors, and message board comments signed by the "APR". —Sesel 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as irrelevant political party. KrazyCaley 09:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless and until they field candidates or otherwise become notable. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 21:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-band, Mushroom 13:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angriff

Portugese thrash metal band, probably speediable, claims 2001 album, 1 Ghit in portugese, 10 in all languages, album not available for retail sale, looking for delete concensus MNewnham 15:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as {{nn-band}} (tagged) Stifle 12:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 01:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angry White Male

Delete - The information here is not verifiable. There're some 61,300 hits for "Angry White Male" on Google, but there doesn't seem to be a consistent definition throughout. In the best case, the article is original research, in which it should still be deleted. AucamanTalk 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Changing my vote to Keep the article (per Chick Bowen below). The provided source seems good enough. AucamanTalk 21:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete perhaps the author was thinking of Stupid White Men? Unless good sources emerge for this concept, this article seems like original research. --W.marsh 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the basis for this article was the content of AWM, which should have been a TLA disambig page. I created Angry White Male for this reason. If the concept of the angry #000000 male has fallen away, I suppose that is a good thing, but I doubt that it is so. -Acjelen 02:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, for a start. Stifle 11:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. The so-called Angry White Male is one of the personifications of groups of American voters, just like the Soccer Mom and the NASCAR dad. The Angry White Male supposedly was a major factor in the 1994 congressional elections. -- Mwalcoff 01:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You cannot just write your personal opinions or analysis into Wikipedia. It would original research. AucamanTalk 18:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Neither I nor the creator of the article invented the concept of the "Angry #000000 male." It was used in a lot of media in the mid-90s. See, for example, the June 4, 1995 New York Times article "Affirmative Action: The Race to Win Over The Angry White Male." -- Mwalcoff 22:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You have to be able to provide sources; otherwise it's original research. I subject of the article seems overly broad. I have no problem keeping the article if it's properly sourced and narrowed down. AucamanTalk 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*Delete, original research, unverifiable. Chick Bowen 02:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Never mind, see below.

  • Keep, at least one major newsmagazine used a variation of this to describe the 1994 Congressional situation, and it seems to be a very common search term (see also "Angry #000000 men", which gets even more hits on Google). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per mwalcoff. Calwatch 04:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Change vote to keep and move to Angry #000000 male. I found a citation, which I've added. Chick Bowen 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn neologism.  Grue  14:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand - appears to tie in with men's rights and fathers' rights movement. -- Paul foord 11:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: interesting--Hraefen 00:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 17:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AN/SPN-46 aircraft control radar

Meaningless article devoid of context. Has been on cleanup since June 2005 with no action. Incapable of merging in present form so delete. Eddie.willers 17:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with United States Navy. Denni ☯ 01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as expandable. I don't see a good place to merge. Aircraft carrier would be better than US Navy, but still poor. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 02:03Z
  • Keep perfectly valid stub. There are ten or a hundred thousand other stubs with as much information. If we merged every article on a US Navy ship, weapon, aircraft, radar, uniform, base, rank, tradition, admiral into the article on the US Navy, it'd be far too long and disarrayed to be of any use. Fg2 08:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Quarl. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Quarl & Fg2 -- JLaTondre 23:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. incog 05:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep and merge --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AppIQ

Should Stay - User:Benjwong This is history now that the company no longer exist.
Advertising - NN Avi 02:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC) * Delete per nom. Avi 02:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge into HP per Crunch Avi 03:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Redacted buissiness talk, should be standalone or merge-legit now. 68.39.174.238 02:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into HP which acquired this company last fall. Crunch 02:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Crunch. Ruby 03:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Im not sure it should be merged. Just because another company bought it doesnt mean the history of the company has anything to do with the new owner. -- Astrokey44|talk 04:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight merge to HP. I agree it shouldn't overshadow the rest of HP, but the info about products can all be rewritten as HP products and hafl of the article dropped (half the article is adcopy anyway). The company is only notable for its acquisition by HP (it was a privately-held company that existed for only 4 years). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-23 08:20Z
  • Slight merge What Quarl said. Robin Johnson 11:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per crunch. Mushintalk 14:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep User:Benjwong This is not a major merger but an acquisition. However the product will remain, so it resembles many of the more commonly acquired companies from the past like Rational, Veritas etc. I do not know if there is a wikipedia requirement to only merge public companies with a stock ticker. To keep it short, most small companies that get bought out nowadays are private.
  • Keep - Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs 17:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom 15:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art Digerati

Non-notable and un-encyclopedic. It should have been speedied but the creator removed the tag. Mushroom 03:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Mushroom 03:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Opinion followed by links. Crunch 03:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not sure what the article could even become if it were written more appropriately, as it seems the subject matter is lacking. Peyna 03:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Crunch. Ruby 03:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Avi 05:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable (no obvious Google hits), original research. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-23 08:04Z
  • Speedy delete as non-notable. Robin Johnson 11:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as above. —This user has left wikipedia 12:28 2006-01-23
  • Speedy delete google says "most definitely not". Mushintalk 14:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur oakeshott

Looks like another random World War II solduer Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable. No Google hits for 'Arthur Oakeshott' or variations in spelling. No Incywincy hits either. Eddie.willers 05:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I would like to find out if there are any notable references on him, could be one of the first embeded reporters. BTW he served in WWI, and was a reporter in WWII. Mike (T C) 06:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-23 07:45Z
  • Delete as vanity - Speedy? —This user has left wikipedia 12:41 2006-01-23
  • Delete vanity. --Terence Ong 13:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. The British Army 'Queen's Regiment' was formed in 1966! Prior to that, groups bearing the word 'Queen' as part of their title were not formally known as 'Queen's Regiment'. Many of those groups fought at the Somme so which one was Oakeshott a member of, hmmm? Eddie.willers 16:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - bad joke. Latinus 21:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep It I know the Dates and facts to be true Bold textKeepBold textthe dates are proven in census and the facts are legitimate—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.212.219 (talk â€¢ contribs) .

  • Delete. Unverifiable. Without cited sources, there is no proof this person exists. â€” TheKMantalk 23:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's nothing I can find to verify this guy's existance. Jtmichcock 00:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Avril Lavigne. -- Jonel | Speak 01:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awards and Nominations earned by Avril Lavigne

Redundant information from the Avril Lavigne article, and she hasn't been out long enough nor is she celebrated enough (like Ray Charles or someone) to require a whole article for this. Esprit15d 14:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7 non-notable group of people (club). DES (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome Club

Childish silliness. A club of two people. EBond 17:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 18:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even close. Phantasmo 18:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not NPOV either. Arviragus 18:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 10:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azmaria_no_uta

Appears to be lyrics, not suitable for wikipedia AnAn 09:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 20:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baba dzjo, Zjvet

Characters from a not-yet-written book MNewnham 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as crystal-ballism. Ifnord 18:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not sure how you know it's a not-yet-written book. Seems like it could be almost anything (other than worth keeping) Dlyons493 Talk 21:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as makeup. Latinus 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. a fictional character from James T.'s fictional mystery that is in the process of being written. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 02:26Z
    • It does say that doesn't it! Oh well, my vote was right anyway :-) Dlyons493 Talk 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. incog 18:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nomination --T-rex 23:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 02:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basel Sabbagh

Seems non-notable and biographical. No google hits for full name and only 13 for article name. Thus my vote is delete. Deskana (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It is actually a biography of sorts... is this dissallowed? --And1Viper 00:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, yes it is, my dear And1Viper, since there is no assertion of notability in your biography... Speedy delete per A7 - nn bio. Sorry. – Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speed Delete - Article is a hoax, and a clear dipiction of vanity. Not only is this non-notable, it is a hoax, no person by the name of Basel Sabbagh exists. Abhishekpradhan
    • Why do you think he doesn't exist? User:And1Viper (Basel Sabbagh) seems a genuine user, a real person, even if completely non-notable. 131.111.8.104 01:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Dbtfz 00:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC) This is what user pages are for. Dbtfz 00:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - nn student. Ruby 00:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as above.Blnguyen 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. Avi 02:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as nominator withdraws nomination. Stifle 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Gavere

No context (when? what war?), and google is basically no help (of the few hits for "Battle of Gavere", most don't even refer to this event). Basically unverifibale, and currently meaningless. -R. fiend 16:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep but add information. Most information about this battle is in Dutch (Google for "slag van gavere"; not many hits but they're nearly all from official town sites from the region where the battle took place) Hirudo 17:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added place/time and a link to an article in Dutch that can be used to expand the article. Hirudo 17:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Hirudo. Lukas 20:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, now that it's been given the minimum contwxt, and it seems clear it's not a hoax, I'll withdraw my nomination (I'm still surprised at the dearth of googles). I'll leave this here anyway, hoping it will attract more attention this way than a cleanup tag would, because the article still needs work. -R. fiend 20:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and expand Dlyons493 Talk 21:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bilakis

Non-notable and unverifiable restaurant. Delete OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non notable restaurant. Obina 23:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Smerge to Metrocity. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 05:17Z
  • Delete or slight merge per Quarl. Stifle 12:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boss Hoss

Advertisement Avi 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by The Epopt - Bobet 23:19, 23 Janu