Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 28

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RoySmith (talk | contribs) at 03:30, 28 January 2006 ([Xp fonts displaying other languages]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< January 27 >

Purge server cache

January 28

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. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hematoma (band) and For Yours We Wait

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC, although I'm aware there may be cultural bias here. Always open to new information. Note that there are a few other articles hanging off this one. brenneman(t)(c) 00:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines flight numbers

It doesn't seem that there needs to be an entire article just for this extremely specific subject. No other airlines have it, and it seems to go against WP:NOT. Dbinder 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's only an indicator of how much crud we have to clean up. Ruby 14:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultan

Not enough notability as a saint for an entire article. Either deserves a space in another article, or should not be mentioned.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Last Avenue (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gleek (Involuntary spit)

I'm AFDing this mainly because I'm sure someone will speedy it as patent nonsense if I don't. It gets quite a few google hits [2] so it does appear to be a meaningful concept. Kappa 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article has changed significantly since the nomination. Many of the original objections no longer apply. Night Gyr 01:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.I.U.

A "magical organization" founded by two artists and two musicians, with no assertion or evidence of notability/importance. Neglected article created by 207.244.146.201 (talk · contribs). Unverifiable: no Google hits for "Clear Infinite Universe". Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-28 00:37Z


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) 12:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bongolander

slang, altought mentioned(?) in one book. delete. Melaen 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BANKSHOT! Records


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 into Zanzibar and editorialise. First up, the nomination was just a vote, not a nomination at all. Secondly, that vote was one for merging. Now, AfD is not the place to go if you want an article to be merged. You can do that yourself. Maybe we should have a Wikipedia:Request for merge page for those who want a merge but don't know how? But we've already got those purdy tags ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamamni Persian Baths

Merge into Zanzibar as there isn't enough information even on the linked site to warrant an entire article. Iamvered 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest Pixel Dream Website

Although the cause may be good, this page is just an advertisement for a non-notable (Alexa rank 718,815) web site. It should be deleted until they have some achievements under their belt. Kevin 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep the rewrite. Deathphoenix 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Choronzon (Music project)

If I understood correctly tihis is a music/multimedia project done with a capable computer and access to a CD-writer. non notable.delete. Melaen 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn hard drive recording, "at least until discs can be pressed" as the article puts it. Ruby 01:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because, having read it twice, I still can't see what the supposed claim to notability is. These guys seem to believe pretty sincerely in themselves, b ut I don't see a lot of evidence of external interest. Could be wrong, not my genre and all, but until then I can't tell the difference between this and PR. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 19:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rewrite: You'd never know it from the article but the American/P. Emerson Williams version of this band has released four full-length albums - and at least three of them are available on Amazon. So the band is apparently notable. The article is just written so poorly that it's hard to tell. I would've voted Delete/Rewrite but there's some interesting info in the article if you read hard enough and that shouldn't be lost. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I threw in a discography from http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=4442. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (wonderful job with the rewrite) --Melaen 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As original writer of article I do not understand what was so "poorly written" about it. Though the discography is appreciated (I had meant to add it myself) to have everything about the history of the project blanked out reduces any of the identifying characteristics of the project. And it is a project, not a "band" insofar as the music is not conventional and the members do not play live shows. Please inform me if I've broken some Wikipedia rule in posting this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychaotic (talk • contribs) .
    • No offense but it was fairly confusing the way it was. It was also very non-standard. The standard is to give a short, sweet introduction and then try to give some history. And the quantity of history should be relative to the importance of the band. No one's ever heard of this band so it doesn't make sense to write a longer article for it than a more well-known band. This was getting into deeper detail than I think most wanted to hear. Maybe that's just me though - when I read biographies on bands' websites, I usually bail-out from sheer boredom after about a paragraph - and that's for bands I love. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way I figure it, especially in the digital milieu "significance" is becoming more and more subjective and the grounds for determining it are hazy. I felt that the history, in this case, is part of what makes the project significant. Have you ever heard of another band or project that formed from more than one individual using the same (obscure) name and then deciding to collaborate? Or a band with occult referents that had not one but two incidents of natural disasters following completions of their works? I appreciate your constructive criticism here (just saying something is poorly written is not constructive crit imho) but as far as "deeper detail" goes, what else would someone want when they look up something in an encyclopedia? If one merely wants a definition they go for a dictionary. I'd have gone on for three or four screens of text that would've been one thing; I consciously and conscientiously kept it pretty simple. I don't want to be a pain in the rear (I imagine this place is full of idiotic, interminable time-wasting arguments and I do not want this to become one of same) but I would like to replace some of the information that the rewrite discarded - particularly the above information as it is of primary significance - and it is my hope that if I do so in a more succinct fashion that it will not be hosed off. Psychaotic 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds like a plan. If you caught the end of my earlier sentence: "there's some interesting info in the article if you read hard enough and that shouldn't be lost". I think it's all in the presentation. Some of that may have been better suited in an "Interesting facts" section rather than being the core of the overall article. Basically, the core of every musical band article should be the music. In this case, the music got drowned out by the bio. That's probably the way I should have said it in the first place so I apologize if I offended. I'd say go ahead and put whatever you want in there and you'll probably have other pairs of eyes making sure the point of the article isn't lost. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 10:11 2006-02-02


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) 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DragonFable

online RPG in a in an extremely limited beta phase. delete. Melaen 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DMOU

Non-notable web forum; neglected article created by 213.40.131.65 (talk · contribs). Traffic Rank for designermakers.org.uk: 2,706,659. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A History of Designer Makers. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-28 00:51Z

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 04:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Olive

non notable actor, delete. Melaen 00:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G.A.N.N

Delete as article on vanity subject. SYCTHOStalk 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pen wars

Article is about Star Wars spoof made by two people, which has not yet been released. No relevant Google hits. - squibix 00:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Katie

Doesn't seem notable, a Google search reveals a lot of general stuff but not much in particular to this "movement". The website is ranked an astonishingly low 626,801 on Alexa and seems mainly to be a vehicle for making money off of CafePress sales. In other words, this whole site is just a non-notable commercial enterprise and this encyclopedia article seems to exist solely to assist those commercial endeavours. Does not belong on Wikipedia. Cyde Weys 01:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poser (slang)

Pure dicdef, and Wiktionary already has an article [4]. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-28 01:05Z

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. --Shanel 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayme Rubenstein

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.

DON'T DELETE: While the diet described may sound ridiculous to some, it is of interest to those who want to know more about the different diets that exist, and the guidelines for each. As a nutritionist, I found this article fascinating, not because I agree with the guidelines put forth in the Primal Diet, but of rhte diet's unique approach to health and human history. The article could be re-written to make it easier for readers to understand.

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 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primal Diet, Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Article about a non-notable diet fad. "Primal Diet" only gets 6,000 search results on Google, and the creator is similarly doomed to obscurity with only 16,000 hits. If this article is deleted (which I hope it is), I propose this article be re-made with the topic being what "cavemen" ate, not some silly diet. Cyde Weys 01:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hatred for something different. The article is not very nice looking, but I appreciate the information. It does not deserve to deleted, especially for the reasons given. Terbospeed 03:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from being an ad, God forbid someone gets sick from eating raw food because we didn't get this thing off Wikipedia. Ruby 04:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is the number of hits the determining factor we'd like to set for entries? Is a fad a bad thing? I sought out information on this topic and found this entry. The excuses given to pull this post seem unbeleivable, and certainly not reasons the Wikipedia community wants to give credence to.

Yeah, you get E Coli from uncooked pork and then you puke your guts out, for a loss of twelve lbs in only four gut-wrenching days and nights. Ruby 05:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rolling in the creator as well, since he has no claim to notability beyond this
Above user Pietrosperoni (talk · contribs) has edits only to this AfD and an edit war over effects of heat on enzymes - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Group noise theory

Neologism with zero Google hits and no sources cited in the article. Basically a "theory" saying 'a lot of people in a room at once will talk loudly'. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chillax


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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aire adaire

Non-notable idiom, google returns zero hits. Weregerbil 01:18, 28 January 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.
 This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Franz piombino. Please do not modify it. The result was keep. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, however, the page history is still available. 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. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FTH

Delete as fancruft. SYCTHOStalk 01:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. SYCTHOStalk 21:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sleep

Delete as fancruft. I can't seem to find a main article. SYCTHOStalk 01:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect (nomination withdrawn). Ah, thanks, perfectblue. I'm going to make a redirect, instead, as the AfD process takes so long. By the way, if you still need the info on this page, just user the history section of the article. SYCTHOStalk 21:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Corporate Culture Affairs

Lack of notability. Google search turned up only 30 pages or so, with Wikipedia ranked second. Bcasterline 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Despite its name, this organization seems to be the product of some corporate leaders' vanity, but I'm afraid they're notable enough. See http://www.ethniki.gr/en/pr_release_resb.asp?P_ID=348 — Hillel 03:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete: Caravaca (below) is right, having looked carefully at the website and at the other Google hits, in the light of his comment, I'm now convinced this is indeed a non-notable one-man vanity "association". Exactly the stuff we shouldn't be fooled by. This one was well disguised though. — Hillel 15:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The individuals named in the article are world-famous and their activities, including this one, are notable. They're also newsworthy, if you read the financial pages. The article itself could use some expansion - I think I'll put a "stub" tag on it if I can figure out the best one to use. -Ikkyu2 03:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looked at this for some time. I don't like the total absence of a German-language equivalent of the same site (which might have been more informative) - suggests they may not actually be doing anything much. I agree with the view that this may simply be a vanity-association created by a well-connected banker who wants to ensure his place in history. Does "notable" mean well-connected or significant? Not significant. Caravaca 13:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What banker? The article and website clearly state that the Institute was founded by a professor. Also the Institute's seminars and publications are listed on the website, with materials available in both English and German. -- JJay 16:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "professor" was actually a banker who got himself an honorary professorship (a modern German equivalent of a knighthood or an earldom). And the website itself (or any equivalent) is not in German, which suggests to me that it isn't aimed at Germans, which doesn't make sense if it is in Frankfurt. Normally German websites of this calibre are bi-lingual with the main version being in German. Caravaca 16:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are going a bit far in your statements. Checking on Professor Pohl, I get 20,000 google hits [5]. From what I can tell, he has been a historian for at least 30 years and a Prof since the early 90s. He has written approximately 30 works of financial history [6]. He thus does not seem to be a banker who has gotten himself a title. He also would not seem to need the ICCA to "ensure his place in history". -- JJay 16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I came across a second professor with the same name while researching; you might be getting them mixed up, or I might be wrong, but I've run out of time for this. Caravaca 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

38th Parallel (band)

Non-notable band containing non-notable members. One album was released but the band isn't around anymore, there's a link to a myspace page for a different band containing one of the former members. No articles link to this article, except a category and a disambig. goatasaur 02:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks Goatasaur — Hillel 03:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Ifnord 14:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca J. Nelson

Not notable- not worthy of inclusion

*merge with Cornell University if that article exists. Jcuk 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Has published many papers and some books; hundreds of citations. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-23 18:48Z
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 02:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what led to this particular individual winning her grant, but in general, it boggles my mind that a MacArthur Grant in any way constitutes noteworthiness on WP. (See [8] for starters.) --Aaron 18:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why so? It makes her "more well known" than the average professor, she is arguably a participant in a "newsworthy" event, and many do consider it an indication that her work is somehow exceptional: only a handful of people receive these awards. It's no Nobel prize, but its not like she won a blue ribbon at the county fair for growing a vegetable that resembles G. Gordon Liddy. The article you link is interesting, but it seems to go to the award recipients for the arts, which no doubt are more susceptible to being "political" choices than the academic awards.Crypticfirefly 05:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nstard

Delete. Neologism, no relevant Google results, made up in school one day. Brendan 02:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ibat

Delete messy article about a generic learning institute. Mindmatrix 17:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 03:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was somewhat negligent in the summary I provided, though it appears a few users noticed anyway. This article is about a "school" within Kalinga Institute for Industrial Training. This Institute is not a higher-level education provider, and does not confer degrees to its graduates, but rather is a typical technical institute. See listing of programs offered at KIIT Moreover, the article is inappropriately titled. As far as I see, these are the options:

  1. Move to IBAT or Institute of Business Administration and Training if you want this article kept as is
  2. Move to Kalinga Institute for Industrial Training if you believe the institute is important, but the school isn't (again - the school is one part of the institute)
  3. Delete if you believe that neither the school, nor the institute with which it is affiliated, deserve an article.

As stated in my summary, I believe the latter option makes the most sense. Mindmatrix 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --maru (talk) contribs 03:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couch++

Hoax. Attack page. I have recived an email from someone who claims to be the target of the attack asking for it to be removed. << These are lies Geni 03:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The so called "attack" is not fake and is truth. He is enjoying it.

You did not receive an email from him, cuz he is posting in forums that he enjoys it. 


[16 Minutes Ago 03:09 AM]  Couch:  	 I find it very hilarious

"O RLY, YA RLY, NO WAI!" = "Oh really? Quite really. I dare say no!" says:
I find it very hilarious

It doesn't really matter the article is a hoax and will be removed.Geni 03:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well that isn't really fair now is it...Besides Couch++ is a real programming language! Just buy his book from Amazon.com!


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, already on Wiktionary. Mushroom 13:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst

This page is a dictdif that already has an entry on Wiktionary. It is unlikely that this subject could be expanded to an encyclopedia article. James084 03:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xp fonts displaying other languages

I can't find anything in wp:csd that fits, but there should be. Original research, vanity, advertising, take your pick. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is wikipedia a repository for passing on human knowledge? surely something which is primarily written to help us communicate within our many languages is of use. --Blackest knight 04:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, WP is for passing on human knowledge. Just show me a link to your source so it can be verified as not being original research, and I'll change it to a Keeper. Ruby 04:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[12] Is the basis for this article. however I have simplified it to the essentials- however would it be better placed within this article Windows_XP_CustomizationIf so I will gladly move it.

Delete it please the essential idea's in it are better suited elsewhere thanks for looking at it. it has been interesting. --Blackest knight 05:22, 28 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_28&oldid=37036937"