Biocrawler:Votes for deletion (long form)

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

If the latest nominations appear to be missing from this page, please purge the cache (http://www.biocrawler.com{{localurl:Biocrawler:Votes_for_deletion_%28long_form%29|action=purge}}), or find out about browser caching.

Votes for Deletion (VfD) is where Biocrawlerns decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait five days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:

• Kept
• Deleted per the deletion policy
• Sent to Cleanup
• Merged and/or redirected to an existing article
• Transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or Wiktionary)

More information.

Things to consider:

• It is important to read and understand the Biocrawler deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page.
• Use the "what links here" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Biocrawler.
• Please familiarize yourself with some frequently cited guidelines, in particular WP:BIO, WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC and WP:VAIN.

VfD etiquette:

• Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment.
• Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~.
• If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.
• Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
• Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.

Alternatively, you can view the list of discussions (related changes (http://www.biocrawler.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=User:AllyUnion/VFD_List)), updated hourly. This list of discussions keeps a list of 7 days of discussions.

However, as a third way, you may choose to add each VFD subpage day to your watchlist by clicking this link: Add today's VFD to watchlist (http://www.biocrawler.com/w/index.php?title=Biocrawler:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_22&action=watch)

View only today's entries

June 17

Phallogist

Only placing this here to be fair, to the user that tried to speedy it. Word appears in a few of our articles, so if it is wrong, Biocrawler en masse needs a good clean-up. I vote keep, obviously :- ) Antares33712 21:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism —Wahoofive (talk) 00:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• P.S. Why did you add this to the top of the VFD page, instead of the bottom?—Wahoofive (talk) 00:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all nonsense neologisms without asking all the adults to vote on them. --Wetman 00:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. This article should be circumcised from Biocrawler. JamesBurns 03:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a phallogist hmmm. Now I know what to call myself the next time I need sex. LOL 205.188.116.137 20:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a riot. If we can't keep it, can we move it to the bad joke category? 63.164.145.198 20:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bad joke. No BJAODN. humblefool® 20:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Fire Star 20:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Doesn't even make sense, since I think phallogist should be one who studies the penis not one who likes it (phallophile?). Quale 02:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. typo of "phallologist". Either way, doesn't belong here, as Biocrawler is not a dictionary. -Wiccan Quagga 10:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Scimitar 19:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --If was spelled correctly, it should be moved to wiki-dictionary but otherwise it should be deleted. Billhpike 19:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Finklestein

Delete - neologism, probably coined by the user of the IP. I suppose this could be unloaded onto to the Wiktionary. -Splash 00:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Finklestein combined with either FPS or strafe gets no useful Google result, and the fact that "this term was coined by" or whatnot is in there makes it even more obvious. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the disambig I just created at Finkelstein. -- BDAbramson ^talk 00:55, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Pburka 01:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect (no merge) per BDAbramson. — Gwalla | Talk 03:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 06:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Article is neologism, but the article name can easily be a typo for Finkelstein. —Kjammer 08:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as misspelling. The word isn't notable or, if it is, it's a unexpandable dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Finkelstein -- Francs2000 | Talk (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&action=edit&section=new) [[]] 14:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Taogebra

Original research nonsense, non notable. No google hits, created by someone I know, unfortunately. CryptoDerk 00:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Heh. Delete -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as joke or nonsense. No Google hits. Excerpt from article: ...polarity, a property shared by all things, continues to differentiate into four elements around a central "earth" element... etc. etc. etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. I would say BJAODN but... it's not funny. -- BDAbramson ^talk 00:56, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• I wrote the stub, not knowing about the prohibition of original research, sorry. I had thought it might be worthwhile once suitably expanded by interested parties, so I would have said give it a chance and keep it. But if it's against policy, it's against policy. 130.217.76.77 01:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Expanding it? So there'd be more crackpot rambling than there is now? Can't see how that would be a good thing. Delete psychotic gibberish. Ben-w 17:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Re-add it once it's become established on its own merit. Pburka 01:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete its patent nonsense.-Splash 01:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

This stub was adapted from some text that I wrote, by someone not familiar with the material, so it comes off as crackpot. My original text is based on understandings gained from a year and half of reading Thomas Cleary. This is a condensation of study in this school begun around 25 years ago. The wikipedia stub Taogebra may appear offensive on first reading, but I am hoping that it may be given a chance to be edited into credible form. Keep the disclaimer up. I agree with the policy of having a reputable encyclopedia, and I also see room for the valid translation of important ideas. Taogebra is based on concepts I remained sceptical of for a very long time. But to cast it out is to skip a stage in comprehension; to let an over zealous rationalization of an uninformed translation define how we understand. In my studies I learned to accept the valid part of a statement and not be bothered by the rest. 05:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 06:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Unsigned votes from various anon IP's:

Keep it. Interesting read.

Highly interesting. Definitely has some sort of twisted scientific value.

Keep it - very entertaining.

• Whoa. Idiosyncratic original research. Neologism, with zero Google hits for the word. Delete. Actually, on further reading of the article, Speedy Delete as patent nonsense if possible. -- The Anome 11:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. original research. Please gyus take a look sometimes into WP:CSD about what can be speedeleted. mikka (t) 21:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's not totally original research since Thomas Cleary writes in "The Secret of the Golden Flower",1991, about the potential for the techniques of the Complete Reality school of Tao [Ch'an, Zen]to be used for general problem solving. I tried to edit some of the bunk out of that entry; it said the edit needs to be merged, which I haven't figured out yet. -fractile *****

Spencer Dunham

Vanity bio of a "professional pogger". No Google hits I can find. Calton | Talk 00:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, obviously =) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ya. Delete Howabout1 Talk to me! 00:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete joke, hoax, or attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Andrew Lenahan. DS1953 01:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Pburka 01:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 06:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Damn you paranoid hicks, go back to eating burgers and using AOL. You're the real hoaxes and attack pages.--65.92.123.75 17:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ooooooo. Somebody needs a nap. Delete. Utter crap. -R. fiend 23:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Either hoax or non-encyclopedic. Paranoid Hick
• Delete unless proven of notability is presented.--Poli 03:22, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Rokfd

Vanity. Flcelloguy Give me a note! Desk 00:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity. I thought about speedying that a little while ago but I restrained myself.Splash 00:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 2-person injoke, the second worst kind of vanity. Or third worst, if you include people writing up articles with themselves being married or having affairs with celebrities, but that's sort of in a league of its own. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. -- BDAbramson ^talk 01:05, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Vanity. Pburka 01:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per User:BDAbramson. DS1953 02:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 06:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic.--Poli 03:23, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Forever Alexa

Forever Alexa has no purpose on Biocrawler, is self-promoting, and Alexa Vega (of whom I'd never heard) is simply too minor, IMHO. Hope I did this all in decorum. I'm still new. Recnilgiarc 01:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• No vote. I fixed the links above (you had Alexa Vega instead of Forever Alexa). --SPUI (talk) 02:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, non-encyc and largely an ad. Google turns up only their website and an Alexa search (to my amusement) returns only that it is not in the top 100,000. PS. Which version is the second picture down?-Splash 02:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Alexa Vega, whoever she is. - Jersyko talk 02:27, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete She's the Spy Kids girl. Anyway, this fansite has No Alexa Rank (http://www.alexa.com/data/details?url=foreveralexaonline.com) to speak of. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on the grounds that it is an ad, has poor Google results, and has no Alexa rank. The wikipedia isn't a web directory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Biocrawler_is_not), so sites should only go on here if there's a dern good reason (ie. a high rating). The article is horribly doomed from: "what makes this site so special? Well, the site features Alexa Vega as one of its members!" anyways :| -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't understand what it's about. Muijzo 03:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable website but include as a link in Alexa Vega who is a notable actress, having starred in the Spy Kids movies and the recent release Sleepover. 23skidoo 03:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fansites don't get articles unless they're world-famous. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 04:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Szyslak, but a link in Alexa Vega might be warranted if it's particularly informative. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Tiamat (Planet)

For discussion. Had been marked as speedy by user:Denni for nonsense. See also Talk:Tiamat (Planet) Satori 02:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, probably speedily as nonsense, or failing those ground as non-notable and non-encyc. Google returns Tiamat 657000 times in a whole gamut of senses none of the first 20ish of which are the 'planet', apart from this Biocrawler article. It's also been added to the Tiamat (disambiguation) page.-Splash 02:24, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Google search for "Zecharia Sitchin Tiamat" returns 1320 hits. So that's why I'm not sure if it qualifies for patent nonsense. Satori 02:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I owe an apology for not looking around enough. I've retracted my vote and will quietly exit by the side door.-Splash 02:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This article does not contain any non-sense at all. Reference is very clear. Discussion has been going on at Talk:Tiamat and because of POV disputes, information relating to this theory has been supressed by POV contributors. Are administrators going to delete this page but allow Tinfoil hat?--AI 02:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Indeed notable. While it may seem nonsense at first glance, research proves otherwise. Wikiac (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikiacc&action=edit&section=new)c 21:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zecharia Sitchin's theories belong in Zecharia Sitchin. Every planet he dreams up doesn't rate an article of its own. (I mean, who is he, Gene Roddenbery?) ----Isaac R 02:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If Zecharia Sitchin is the only major proponent of this then merge and redirect to Zecharia Sitchin. RJFJR 01:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The only excuse for this article would be if it contains too much info to merge into Zecharia Sitchin. Apparently, it does not contain too much info. Merge would be a sensible option. Decius 16:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excecutor-class Star Dreadnought

Besides the fact that we already have an article about the Executor class, the name is misspelled. Kross 02:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Umm, yes, delete. We already have an article using the common name of "Star Destroyer". There's no need to make a new article anyways, and I think the article reeks of copyvio. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article already covered under Executor (Star Wars), and the Star Destroyer article.-LtNOWIS 03:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Super delete. This article is quite funny; it looks like the author got drunk and decided to write a WP article.--M412k 14:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Nitpick: "The Excecutor is the ship that destroys the death star in Episode VI." No it isn't. The Millennium Falcon destroyed the second Death Star. An Executor did collide with the space station, damaging a relatively small portion of it. Delete this rambling, inaccurate, unnecessary, misspelled article. -- Plutor 17:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have seen a quite complete reference about the Executors in some other article. And this ones is filled with incorrections.--Poli 03:28, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Pleasurehorse

The author has repeatedly reverted any attempt to (reasonably or otherwise) remove the article, or even clean it up. They just got rid of the {{cleanup}} without a single change. No official policy on monikers I suppose. At best, non-encyclopedic, but I'll leave this one to the rest of you.-Splash 02:48, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• No vote yet - Pleasurehorse gets 6,980 Google hits (about half of which seem to refer to [www.pleasurehorse.com], which is, in fact, about owning horses for pleasure. -- BDAbramson ^talk 03:23, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Some other random observations:

734 hits for Pleasurehorse AND god.

1,460 hits for Pleasurehorse AND bomb.

4 hits for Pleasurehorse AND chewbacca.

• Delete I put in a cleanup tag because it's badly edited. Someone reverted this and so I vote delete because I don't like articles where everyone reverts my changes. Muijzo 03:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A google search for Pleasurehorse +"Shawn Greenlee" turns up just 25 Google hits (http://www.google.com/search?q=Pleasurehorse+%22Shawn+Greenlee%22&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&start=30&sa=N). Bad behaviour described above doesn't do much to help its case, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Possibly add link to pleasurehorse.com as external from Horse only valid use on Biocrawler for it - certainly not worthy of its own entry. --KillerChihuahua 14:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• There is a policy on monikers. The Biocrawler:Naming conventions (common names) tell us that a biography of the composer Shawn Greenlee should be at Shawn Greenlee, since (as research reveals) that's what people actually refer to him as. There is evidence (http://www.aspectmag.com/issues/bio.cfm?contactID=101&workID=27) scattered (http://www.aquariusrecords.org/cat/m27.html) here (http://silvertone.princeton.edu/litsk/pages/biosNProgramNotesB.htm#greenlee) and there (http://www.loadrecords.com/bands/horse.html) that this person might meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, although I don't know enough about the labels to determine whether they meet the album-release criterion. Uncle G 14:56, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Delete: He's merely a musician, not necessarily a signed, recorded, or distributed one. The website is out because of Not a Web Guide. The links in the article also look highly suspect to me. Geogre 15:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment if deleted, does the past edit history merit protection for the article name? Vegaswikian 07:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Allmusic.com shows that Pleasurehorse have released one record Bareskinrug on an independent label Load. [1] (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&token=ADFEAEE4781ED947A57520EFB71670E1FA5CDE2DFE62D9BA5007656392940454880C71ED59E695CBAEFB7CAB7BAFFF2BE85D05D3CDE456F9CC0640&searchlink=PLEASUREHORSE&uid=MIW050506191907&samples=1&sql=11:osd8vwxua9xk~T2). It hasn't charted. The evidence produced by Uncle G shows that he has released other records. I would vote Keep given that he appears to be active. Capitalistroadster 23:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete shows no evidence of being considered for wikipedia as in WP:MUSIC. And I am not even sure that this is really a music related article... Could change my vote if a good expansion shows me wrong.--Poli 03:30, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

PaulHainsworth

Delete, notability not established.-gadfium 03:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete → JarlaxleArtemis 03:06, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Respek da T-Dot.--65.92.123.75 17:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete still not notable enough for encyclopedia material, but seems promising...--Poli 03:33, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Vinnie Richards

Same case as Hans Nusslein. (preceding unsigned comment by  Mayumashu 04:51, 26 May 2005)

• I've just written an article about Vinnie Richards. So there's no reason to delete it. If I have the strength of character, maybe I'll also do a brief one about Hans Nusslien. Hayford Peirce 18:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, keep, definitely encyclopaedic. Noel (talk) 05:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This whole Biocrawler bit about redirects etc. can be very confusing. What I *want* to say is this: keep the link between Vinnie and the Pro Championship listings. Do *not* delete the link or the Hans article. Hayford Peirce 06:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Step three of the notification process was not completed. I am fixing the fomatting and completing the nomination. No vote implied. RJFJR 03:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Should be self-explanatory why.The Literate Engineer 03:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like a relic of the crusade against the tennis redirects... -- Jonel | Speak 03:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and I do believe that this nomination is partially my fault - I bugged the guy about leaving some {{rfd}} tags lying around. humblefool® 20:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand.--Poli 03:34, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Bang (Korean)

I think the decision to Transwiki this to Wiktionary was a good one. Bang, by itself, is no more encyclopedia-worthy than any other syllable in the Korean language. Therefore, delete. Visviva 03:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Dictdef. `It's all about the wiktionary, baby. -- Jonel | Speak 03:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable type of space used for recreation with no real equivalent in English. Kappa 05:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 07:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Biocrawler is not a dictionary. How can someone want to keep it after transwiki? I don't see a discussion here or a cross-cultural pollination that needs explanation. Geogre 15:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Indeed, Biocrawler is not a dictionary. Once one realizes that, and sees that Wiktionary already has 房, one can get away from fixating upon translating a Korean word (including losing that ghastly {{koreanname noimage}} template, whose task Wiktionary does a far superior job of performing here) and can uncover a potential encyclopaedia article that was hidden beneath the Lost Lexicography. Modified article. See what you think now. Uncle G 16:52, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
  • I still think it's mostly a dictdef/usage guide, but I'm going to change my vote to Abstain because it's borderline. -- Jonel | Speak 18:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry you don't like the Koreanname templates, Uncle G. If you would like to propose an alternative, please do so at Biocrawler talk:Naming conventions (Korean). -- Visviva 07:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Uncle G. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is just an essay about the evolution of a word. That makes it a dicdef padded out with linguistic speculation. I'd change my vote if somebody added material indicating this was an interesting Korean cultural phenomenon. ----Isaac R 02:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Although UncleG has done an admirable job of filling this article out, I still don't think it merits inclusion (and I say this as an avowed inclusionist). "Bang" really does just mean "room" or "rooms"... the only thing that is distinctive about it are its collocational properties. The different kinds of bang -- sarangbang, noraebang, PC-bang, DVD-bang &c. -- are distinctive cultural phenomena that do merit their own encyclopedia articles. Each such article might reasonably mention the composition of the word from bang. But bang itself is no more distinctive than any other random Korean affix. -- Visviva 05:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blazing Sea Nuggets

Non-notable college newspaper comic strip. — Gwalla | Talk 03:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted Sea Nuggets, an infamous entree coming to a Biocrawler near you. Goodbye, Farewell, and all the rest. -- Jonel | Speak 04:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 04:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable comic strip. JamesBurns 07:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic.--Poli 03:36, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

SPEEDIED  — Gwalla | Talk 04:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flex auto sales

Looks to be an advert for a used car dealership. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 03:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy advert. And if I'm voting speedy, you know its ok! SchmuckyTheCat 04:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied for spam. — Gwalla | Talk 04:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.</div>

Alan Devine

Non-notable actor. — Gwalla | Talk 04:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Fine movies, but the article tells us nothing. He "may be seen" in them, but where? Where should we look? Is he an actor or an extra? Geogre 15:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I was a little suspicious of this at first, but IMDB reveals it's true (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0222594/). Needs expansion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If it's in IMDB then it is notible, 'non-notible' is being used too often as a heavey club to destroy articles. --ShaunMacPherson 18:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO to me. IMDB (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0222594/) doesn't show him as anything but a bit player (British scout, Man in black, boy on beach #1). DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per DoubelBlue. Wait til he gets a speaking role, or at least a character with a name. And IMDb = notability is nonsense. IMDb will post anything. Some other folks Shaun thinks are notable: [2] (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0731743/) [3] (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0741983/) [4] (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0550717/). Can't wait to see their articles. -R. fiend 23:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per DoubleBlue and R. fiend. IMDB entry does not indicate notability. Quale 08:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Having an IMDb entry doesn't indicate anything. —Xezbeth 08:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Small roles in small movies. Should everyone who has ever been in a movie, regardless of how small their role, automatically get a Biocrawler entry? The IMDB is a movie database, but I don't think Biocrawler should become one too. Gamaliel 08:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - many small roles in many small moview does it for me. -- BDAbramson ^talk 18:48, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Derek Powazek

Delete Vanity, it looks like. Bloghate 04:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Agreed. Vanity. -- Cabhan 04:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Text is nearly identical to the short bio on his site: either copyvio or autobio. Neither belongs here. — Gwalla | Talk 04:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Technorati is notable, this guy is not. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 07:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated above. --Michael Snow 00:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic.--Poli 03:37, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Alister MacKenzie

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Seems to be a notable golf course designer, actually, but this article doesn't tell us much of anything and is POV. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 04:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at cleaning this up. I hope this is any better. (User Aecis not logged in and working from another computer than his own). 195.169.89.233 10:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And in case there are any doubts: I hereby want to verify that the cleanup was indeed done by me, so noone is posing as me besides myself. Aecis 18:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep per nominator reasoning. But I'd really like to see some expansion. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with drastic un-POV-ing, cleanup and expansion. Aecis 09: