Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 7

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Zulevic

nn actor with only a couple of credits to his name. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure 382 unique hits when searching for Jim Zulevic, and a search for Gayco brings back few relevant results. He does, however, have quite a few credits. Royboycrashfan 00:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Searching with quotes around the name comes up with 227. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Second City troupe member with verifiable movie credits. Where's the issue? Monicasdude 00:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. His IMBD entry indicates sufficient notability. dbtfz^talk 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A couple is enough, check IMDB next time. Mike _{(T C)} 01:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? What makes you think I didn't check it? Especially since the previous version of the article was a word-for-word copy of it? I still believe three very minor roles in three very minor movies is insufficient, but I will await your apology. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Why exactly do I owe you an appology? He is notable IMO, thats my opinion, no appolgies for good faith opinions/comments. Mike _{(T C)} 04:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your tempers in check and remain civil to your fellow Wikipedians. If you have issues to discuss, move it to user talk and out of the AfD. Thanks! Isopropyl 05:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Sorry my fault for not explaining myself. I am not saying you nominated this in bad faith, however you said you did check the IMDB which lists 15 movie/TV roles, a director role and a writing role for a TV series but only say he has a couple, thats where I got the idea you didn't check it. Mike _{(T C)} 19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Mike, I appreciate your comments. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The IMDB entry appears to have been substantially expanded in the last few days. Monicasdude 17:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has enough of a presence in the media to support an article. --CTSWyneken 02:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough Celcius 02:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Agreed. Notable enough. --AaronS 03:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this person is notable erasing would not make sense Yuckfoo 03:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with the reservation that it needs to be expanded to be of any importance. His parts in those movies weren't huge, and alone are probably not enough to merit inclusion. IMDB shows he did a lot more work with TV, and the article should reflect that--as well as his (apparently well-known) comedy work. Seqsea (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I also think he is notable enough; he's done work with Second City, and he has some film and TV credits. As an aside, be nice :) -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Zoe. We have enough comedians already. Just because the company you work for happens to be more publicized than others doesn't mean you're important. Seeing how he's dead, I doubt there's much likelihood of expansion. -Wiccan Quagga 06:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm going to try to make some improvements to the article. dbtfz^talk 06:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jimboy0 06:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. IMDB entry shows a reasonably notable record. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is beginning to take shape and makes a fair claim to notability. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for obvious reasons, already stated. --Rob 08:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 10:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable. Appeared in five films, directed one, in addition to appearances in several TV shows and TV movies. Angr/talk 11:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like most of those appearances are bit parts, barely credited. Certainly not staring roles. Regards, Ben Aveling
• Keep obviously notable. "We have enough comedians already" made me laugh. Lets put a cap on American Idol winners as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable (WP threshold is low, and I think he meets it) Slowmover 19:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable enough —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Staxringold (talk • contribs) .
• Keep Per IMDB AdamJacobMuller 03:07, 11 March 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. Flowerparty■ 16:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TeenSpeak Online

• i created this article. i'm new to wikipedia, and i was trying to do my best. please, help me clean it up. it's not an ad, i was just trying to tell ppl. more about a website a lot of my friends r talkin about. please remember the "don't bite the newcomers" clause in the wikipedia deletion policy.
• nn website, no alexa ranking, according to whois, the domain was only created in December. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. How many websites are listed on Google News? --Rory096 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thousands. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable website--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, possible adv Celcius 02:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like spam. --AaronS 03:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable website. --Mysidia (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Terence Ong 10:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, have heard of this website many times from teenagers. --Biggles 14:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There are lots of sites I've heard of, and even participate on, that I don't think deserve articles. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Biggles. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB--I can only image what the result would be if "I've heard of this" were a criteria for inclusion. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Probable advertisement. Slowmover 19:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm pretty sure I've heard of it to, and being an affiliate of Google makes me think it's notable. What makes you guys say it's an advertisement? Sure, it could use a little cleanup, but it seems to just be straight facts, rather than "Zomg Teenspeek is teh best lol!!11one!1" which anyone who's done New Pages Patrol has probably seen. --Rory096 21:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There are thousands of news sites quoted by Google News. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WEB, advertisement, all of the above. Staxringold 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per norm AdamJacobMuller 03:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:30, 11 March 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. Flowerparty■ 16:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neon Genesis Evangelion: R

First AfD here, Maikeru first suggested this nomination. I am voting Speedy G4 as recreated content. Royboycrashfan 00:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G4 per nom. Should be taken to WP:DRV if it's contested, not re-created. -- Mithent 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Deletion was never contested. Royboycrashfan 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because it's not an offical part of the Evangelion storyline; it's merely fan-made. - Brittany
• Delete Non-encyclopedic Celcius 02:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G4 per nom. --AaronS 03:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Not a speedy. I have no vote on this on its merits, but the long article that is here now is not substantially similar to the previous content (which was a stub), and hence speedy criterion G4 does not apply. Dragons flight 03:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete at any velocity as non-canonical additions to a fictional story (ie fanfiction, or if you want to be meaner, fancruft). -- Saberwyn 05:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agree it probably doesn't meet CSD G4, but I think it's not notable even with the larger article -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 06:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• It seems large and relevant enough that it merit some brief mention in the main article (probably just a link as "fanfiction" from the Series' main article page), but not its own article Delete. --Mysidia (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 10:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft. Better not to use G4 on things that are clearly non-notable because the creator might just repost it will more fancruft. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft, simple as that. Staxringold 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Fan fiction is not notable. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yeah, I know I'm in the minority here, but this is actually one of the rare examples of notable fan fiction. Its a major production and has some notable people involved in it such as Tiffany Grant. JoshuaZ 03:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Or, since everyone else clearly disagrees with me, maybe just going a long with Mysidia's suggestion? JoshuaZ 03:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless JoshuaZ has evidence of notability beyond that one ADV's voice actors was involved. I've heard of Retake and Exodus but I haven't even heard of this one and google is not telling a good story in its favour. kotepho 12:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft AdamJacobMuller 03:09, 11 March 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. Deleted by User:Rmhermen. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex mixon

Personal vanity article (subject of article is also article's creator); non-notable subject. BrownHairedGirl 00:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Royboycrashfan 00:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete' A7, non-notable person. -- Mithent 00:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy a7, and tagged as such. (edit conflicted with Mithent, I'm too slow) --Rory096 00:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Speedied. Can we close this nomination? Fetofs ^Hello! 00:59, 7 March 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. Flowerparty■ 16:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chokkan Do

Delete, grasshopper. Made-up martial art, of which Google is ignorant. Ashenai 00:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Complete nonsense, and more of an advert than anything. Voporak 16:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, WP:NFT, and WP:NOR. Royboycrashfan 00:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT. Fetofs ^Hello! 01:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Fetofs Celcius 02:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --AaronS 03:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR, too bad he put a lot of work into it. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for things made up in school in one day (or whatever the name is this for, or more commonly WP:NFT). --Terence Ong 10:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per everyone else in this AfD discussion. haz _(user talk)^e 13:23, 7 March 2006
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very wise savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everything. Staxringold 22:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:15Z
• Delete per above AdamJacobMuller 03:09, 11 March 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 with Doom II. Flowerparty■ 16:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MAP31: Wolfenstein

Computer game cruft, very short, and very limited scope. Probably merge into Doom II. Hairy Dude 00:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per nom, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 00:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Not significant enough for an article in itself Celcius 02:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. --AaronS 03:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Claims to be "infamous" but does not support notability. In the future, be bold and merge without nominating for deletion. Pagrashtak 06:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Mergee, not notable for an article on its own. --Terence Ong 10:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per Royboycrashfan. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Not worth deletion or own article. Staxringold 22:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:16Z
• Merge as all of the above. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per everyone. DomRem | Yeah? 00:24, 9 March 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. Flowerparty■ 16:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pang (color)

Can find no evidence that this colour (or the tree that it is supposedly like) exists. The only "Pang tree" on google is a steel sculpture. Unless anyone can come up with some reference for this colour, then I doubt it belongs here. Note too that this article was the creator's only edits to WP, which is often fishy. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fetofs ^Hello! 01:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. dbtfz^talk 01:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Made-up fantasy Celcius 02:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT and WP:HOAX. Royboycrashfan 02:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --AaronS 03:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This ariticle is pangful. --Optichan 14:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No references. Even if it exists, a name for a color not in any dictionary isn't notable. --BluePlatypus 14:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Oh no! Not another color Dlyons493 Talk 20:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What an odd fake... Staxringold 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Note that an anon added this to the List of colors, and never made any other edits. --Rory096 00:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable and/or original research. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:17Z
• Delete, as per Optichan: very pangful. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Yes, pang; this is pang. Kilo-Lima ^{Vous pouvez parler} 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Peculiar hoax. No named color I have ever seen on any HTML or CSS palettes.--Dakota ~ ° 08:28, 12 March 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. —Kirill Lokshin 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qksearch

Qksearch is a search engine. So I searched for it using another well-known search engine and found about 900 hits. But that is a bit of an over-estimate, since some of these are individual "qksearch.htm" pages etc. Nothign on Google News, no evidence of innovation, widespread use, user base, Alexa ranking >200,000 (higher than expected, but compare with the majority of well-known search engines, which are in the top five thousand (or in some cases the top ten). Not everybody can be Google, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per JzG. -- Saberwyn 09:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC). Abstaining. I now realise I don't know as much as I should to comment. -- Saberwyn 09:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. Stifle 09:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As a regular user of this metasearch engine, I am a little disappointed. In my opinion, when people make a suggestion they should be well informed about the topic they are commenting about. In this case obviously the difference between a so called major search engine and a metasearch engine and how to compare them. And to pass a judgement just by searching Google should not be a benchmark for assessing the quality. Definitely not being too much influenced by medis buzz only. May be the best judgement would be to do some research searching and compare the quality of results; and obviously to do so one needs to understand how search engines work and how to evaluate the quality of results.

• keep Anaras 09:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Relisting for more useful discussion. Note how this is possible without the use of garish red ink? -Splash^talk 01:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It may be the best search engine in history but untill it has some sort of impact on the internet there is no way to determine that - as such it is IMHO unencyclopedic untill it does assert itself. Celcius 02:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per above Celcius 02:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If this article is deleted, QKSearch should also be deleted. Fetofs ^Hello! 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per WP:WEB. --AaronS 03:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Both articles Qksearch and QKSearch are useful, although I think they should be combined. Just because a product isn't popular/widespread should not be a reason to remove an article. I vote for keeping this article and then merging it with the QKSearch article.--Kaze0010 19:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. User has 8 edits, all but one being to HexIt and its AfD and here. (The other was to hex editor. --Rory096 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Oh, and his edit to hex editor was just adding a link to HexIt. --Rory096 00:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. At first glance these past two comments appear to be downgrading my opinion as that of a newbie. I've edited/improved other pages on Wikipedia over the past 2 years albeit anonymously (I could provide some of the IP addresses I used to edit from for proof). I created a user account yesterday because I read voting under a user account carries more weight. I am in agreement with the reasons listed on Notability regarding "Valid content is deleted" and that "Obscure content isn't harmful". It appears that others (strongly) disagree with me on this and the HexIt article. I think Wikipedia is better off being more inclusive on content than exclusive. --Kaze0010 07:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: The page to which you refer is neither Wikipedia policy nor guideline. It is an essay stating the opinions of other editors. -- Andy Saunders 16:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

QKSearch as written was blatant spam, I have now made it a redirect. Just zis Guy you know? 13:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both this article and QKSearch. Just not notable enough yet. -- Andy Saunders 20:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. FCYTravis 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It meets these Notability reasons for not deleting (being kept or merged): "Valid content is deleted", "Obscure content isn't harmful", and "Deletion reform is necessary". --Kaze0010 22:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Rory096 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam for a non-notable search engine.
• Delete spam --MaNeMeBasat 07:08, 10 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fredd (comics)

Orphaned AfD, listing now. Copyvio. No vote. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Article has no content, and seems to be about a minor comic book villain, which I think doesn't meet WP:FICT. This isn't Dr. Doom here. GRuban 14:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 14:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Ned Wilbury 14:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --AaronS 22:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Staxringold 22:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:17Z
• Delete as non-notable. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 09:12, 9 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  22:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uzumaki Carly

Delete as hoax, and an unsophisticated one at that. Google returns zero hits. Ashenai 01:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not sure it's a hoax, but definitely nn. dbtfz^talk 01:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the character Rin mentioned in the article does exist, but I'm not sure if she ever goes by the name of "Carly" --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT, WP:HOAX, and WP:NOR. Royboycrashfan 02:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 03:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, as per nomination. BrownHairedGirl 10:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 12:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if its a hoax, its one of the least funny one's ive seen. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --AaronS 22:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Hoax/original fancruft - CNichols 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Weird hoax. Staxringold 22:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:17Z
• Comment This should not be deleted. This article is actually just a plot spoiler. But this only happens in a special edition of the manga. If anything it should just be labled as a spoiler! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolf demon (talk • contribs) 2006-03-11 00:27:49.
• Delete This is nonsense, a clear hoax. ~MDD4696 02:31, 11 March 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 Military reserves — the articles are nearly identical. I'll TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary, too. -Splash^talk 23:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass of maneuver

Dictionary definition. BrownHairedGirl 01:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Move it to Wikitionary? Celcius 02:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per the above. Royboycrashfan 02:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki this dicdef. Draeco 04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki, I've marked the article as a candidate for transwiki. Pagrashtak 06:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a matter that could be expanded beyond a dictionary, which an encyclopedia should contain an article about, or at least there should be a suitable redirect to pick. --Mysidia (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mysidia. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Either transwiki per above, or merge into appropriate article on military strategies. I think this term comes from WW I (but not certain) so a good place for the content might be Military strategy#Strategy in World War I. Slowmover 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge if possible, per above. --AaronS 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and if that's not possible, Transwiki. Staxringold 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into "military reserves", which I believe is a superset of this term. — RJH 16:20, 8 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  22:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shabash

and Shabash Merops. This was nominated for deletion and withdrawn without much discussion. User:Stifle said that "The software does not seem to be notable independent of its company." I'm not sure that the software is notable either. They might have some impressive clients but that doesn't automatically confer notability. A Google search for their "flagship product" descends into random spam words before one results page is through (i.e. less than 10 valid results). With quotes, the sole result is from us. I'm relisting to generate debate and, pending any evidence of notability, I say Delete. kingboyk 01:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn company. dbtfz^talk 01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non-notable company --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP and WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 02:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --AaronS 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, though not the usual straight advertising. Staxringold 22:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:18Z
• Comment: With now over 1 million articles on Wikipedia, surely the threshold of notability is lowering, meaning people are increasingly able to find information on increasingly obscure subjects. Can I ask what you would consider 'evidence of notability?'. Shabash's list of clients may not make the company relevent to the masses, but they make them relevent within the field of publishing and XML mark-up. - Joe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.95.4 (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 speedily deleted. Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital-drafts, Inc.

corporate vanity page about a non-notable corporation BrownHairedGirl 01:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment page has already been deleted --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G4 & above comment. Mike _{(T C)} 01:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Advert, vanity Celcius 02:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy G4 per the above and A7 per WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 02:41, 7 March 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 Kept and moved to Lobster Newberg.  (aeropagitica)  22:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lobster neuberg

Delete. Useless, just stick the two sentences in the article "lobster". EdGl 02:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, don't merge Move improved article to Lobster Newberg. While it would be possible to write an encyclopedic article about Lobster Newberg (as it is more commonly spelled), this ain't it. The entry in List of foods named after people is better. And this isn't even a good description of the dish, a better one would be "sauteed lobster in cream sauce." Crypticfirefly 04:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Another remark: if the person who wrote this thinks the dish looks like scrambled eggs, they probably broke the sauce. Here's the original recipe from 1894: http://digital.lib.msu.edu/projects/cookbooks/display.cfm?TitleNo=38&PageNum=425 Crypticfirefly 04:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. dbtfz^talk 04:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Move much-improved content to Lobster Newberg. dbtfz^talk 08:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I added a little bit to the article. Apparently there are a few stories about the creation of Lobster Newberg, so I see no reason why this couldn't become a decent article with some work. It could probably use a move to Lobster Newburg, though. Pagrashtak 06:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Nice work, though I would simply have started a new article at Lobster Newberg and ignored this one. Crypticfirefly 07:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC) I added a few more details to your improved version. Crypticfirefly 07:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move as per Pagashtrak. Capitalistroadster 07:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pagrashtak. --AaronS 22:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with the spelling correcting move, and list for expansion if you think it needs it. Staxringold 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but move to Lobster Newberg. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move per above. youngamerican (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep two real references it enough to make a start of an article even if the content is currently lacking Jon513 12:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I still don't know why we need this article since everything in it is already in the lobster article. Also, this isn't even a subcategory of lobster, it's more like a sub-subcategory, as it's in the subcategory of "lobster as food". Therefore, wouldn't "Lobster (food)" be a more suitable article than this? Some clarity/explanation would be nice. -EdGl 20:39, 10 March 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 Merged with Swimming pool.  (aeropagitica)  22:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wading pool

Not voting, just starting a debate, do we really need this article? SailorfromNH 02:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into swimming pool. Royboycrashfan 02:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. A wading pool is different from a swimming pool: it's not meant to be swum (?) in. I'll see if I can't expand the stub a bit. dbtfz^talk 03:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to merge. I guess the term swimming pool is not to be taken too literally. dbtfz^talk 03:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per User:Royboycrashfan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seqsea (talk • contribs) .
• Merge and Redirect perhaps to Swimming pool#Wading pool. Draeco 03:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per all of the above. Mike _{(T C)} 05:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Swimming pool. --Terence Ong 12:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per TerenceOng. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per all of the above. --AaronS 22:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per others. Staxringold 23:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and move into Swimming pool. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:19Z
• Merge contents with swimming pool. --Optichan 15:33, 8 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  22:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ananda (spa)

In its current state the article is simply an advert for this spa, with even parts of the text directly copied from the website of the spa. I doubt that spa is notable enough here, as this is not a travel guide. andy 12:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps it could be moved to WikiTravel? Hynca-Hooley 12:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delte, ad. --Terence Ong 13:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite so it isn't an ad. -- Reinyday, 21:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• A spa. I'll concede that its a spa visited on occasion by a handful of celebrities, however, is a single spa/health resort suitable for a Wikipedia article, considering how many hundreds of thousands of these establishments exist, and how they are all pretty much the same? I say delete. -- Saberwyn 20:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, not the same as other spas. Kappa 12:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advert, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Royboycrashfan 02:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Famous spa. Crypticfirefly 05:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC) I've done a bit of rewriting myself. I think the structure alone may be notable. Crypticfirefly 06:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Cleanup. utcursch | talk 09:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, per above. I'll see what I can do to help. --AaronS 22:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep though remove any copy vio and make it NPOV, not an ad. Staxringold 23:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others. Arbusto 09:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, very interesting and noteworthy. - XX55XX 23:34, 10 March 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 speedied. Shanel 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calientemix

Tagged as an A7 speedy, but it's not actually about the person, so that doesn't really work. -Splash^talk 02:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn-neolgoism, made up word by nn-person. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Blanked by author...Speedy G1, A1 (and G7?) Royboycrashfan 02:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy per Royboycrashfan (I have tagged it as {{db-empty}}). NatusRoma 02:56, 7 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  22:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey O'Brien

• delete not notable enough a person; self-promotion Mayumashu 02:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Asserts some notability, but doesn't meet WP:BIO. Royboycrashfan 02:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Company manages $250 mil., which is not much. The company is probably notable enough, but not the CEO. dbtfz^talk 03:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, looks quite notable, but doesn't meet WP:BIO. --Terence Ong 12:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Quite notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • For what? Help us out here. dbtfz^talk 23:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, reads like vanity or self-promotion. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. If the company grows larger or he does something.. Maybe then. Staxringold 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep seems to have some notability. Arbusto 09:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Seems like promotion. —GrantNeufeld 03:37, 10 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  22:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licorice Voltmeter

It is a known band in argentinian and south american underground rock scene. The very well known band Sumo recorded a cover of their song ´Hola Frank´.

Tagged as a non-notable speedy band, but being the source of collectors' items is enough for a proper consideration. -Splash^talk 02:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Not a single web hit. dbtfz^talk 02:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, doesn't even come close to meeting WP:MUSIC criteria. Royboycrashfan 02:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --Elkman - ^(talk) 03:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 03:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, is this a Hoax? -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 06:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Staxringold 23:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --AaronS 00:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:19Z

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.  (aeropagitica)  22:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Securitysafeguards.net

Delete: unnotable, definitely doesn't seem to deserve an article of its own, and I'm dubious about the value of inclusion in another page. Submitting an AfD because author removed proposed deletion template added by another user, after adding content. Fuzzie 03:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 03:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rob joshbuddy^talk 04:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Another person trying to use wikipedia to warn others about a "threat". At the moment it doesn't even appear that SSG.net is resolving so it's entirely a moot point. --Bachrach44 15:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as very nn. Staxringold 23:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:20Z

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.  (aeropagitica)  22:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dangerous Living

Documentary film. Article tagged for {{advert}} cleanup but nothing has been done. The article text is a copyvio from the producer's web site. [1] Other than that, no assertion of notability or wider impact is given. Per Lexis/Nexis has played at around 7 LGBT film festivals (may be an underestimate as Lexis/Nexis does not pick up smaller newspapers). Thatcher131 03:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn film. Royboycrashfan 03:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 03:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom joshbuddy^talk 04:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both nn and semi-advert. Staxringold 23:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:54Z

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. Flowerparty■ 22:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ansatsuken

Ansatsuken is simply a Japanese word for "Assassin Fist"; it is not a style. This whole article is based off someone's mistranslation.

Perhaps renaming this "Martial Arts of Street Fighter" or something could salvage this page. Evan1975 03:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• I apologize if responses like these are breaking the format, but I'd like to point out that Shotokan Karate is not Ryu/Ken's style. It's a mistranslation. - Nickoten
  • Actually, in SF1, they originally listed Ryu as practicing a real world martial art called "Kyokushinkai". It's a mix of Goju-Ryu, Shotokan, and Judo(History of Kyokushinkai in the uk). In SF2, they changed it to the generic Ansatsuken. (Tiamat's Street Fighter Plot Guide)

--24.130.125.164 08:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE, Ryu and Ken practiced SHOTOKAN...
• Keep , but you'll probably want to cite the Secret Files, All About Capcom books, etc as sources. Since this is the name given to their style I think it's legitimate. If someone wants to start an article for what ansatsuken really is, there could be a disamiguation page with this one being referenced as a fictional form of martial arts from Street Fighter. As also stated in Tiamat's plot guide, Hadou, Tatsumaki, and Shoryu are the key elements of the style, which would suggest that it was meant to be an original style rather than a generic name for what the characters practice. Their in-game normal/command attacks seem to incorporate different styles, but the specials always bank around the same set of techniques. So yes, I feel it is unique enough to keep this name. Again, though, we need the books cited. Also, perhaps we could name the page "Street Fighter Ansatsuken"? Or even maybe "Ansatsuken (Street Fighter schools)"? It should still turn up easily in a search for "Ansatsuken," right? I don't know what we'd do about links from other articles though. EDIT: I looked at the page for Ryu, and I noticed that both the Street Fighter videogames and Tiamat's plot guide (As well as the books he cites, indirectly) are listed as sources. I can only assume the creator of this article may do the same.- Nickoten 15:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom joshbuddy^talk 04:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems pretty detailed, but I'm concerned that a lot of it is original research. Gonna need to see some citations and sources before I give it a stronger opinion.--み使い Mitsukai 14:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. If there's any verifiable information about this, it can be put in the main game article, I'd say. Ned Wilbury 14:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mitsukai. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOR.--Isotope23 17:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOR. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this article. There is too much information to just be deleted. I've referred to this article several times over the past few months. I would like it to stay provided it meets Wikipedia's requirements. 7 March 2006
• Keep but references are needed. - CNichols 22:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if this is real, but if it remains unref'ed, delete it. Staxringold 23:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:54Z
• Weak Keep only if referenced, otherwise Delete per WP:NOR. Mallocks 20:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I wrote the article. I am aware of the problem. The information comes strictly from Tiamat's Street Fighter Plot guide. However, very few Japanese fluent speakers bother to add information or verify. Unfortunately, I need a reference name for this martial art, which Capcom doesn't provide, so I just called it the generic "Ansatsuken". I know it is the equivalent of calling this "hand to hand combat" and saying it's a martial arts. The only option I had was Ansatsuken, which I admit wasn't a proper martial arts name, but I noted that at the beginning of the article. I did this mainly to archive the info from Tiamat's plot guide, which is the most info I've ever received about this game. -BB Mofo 10:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I can rewrite with the sources if necessary. If it requires a merge, fine, but merge with what? Tiamat suggested Ryu, but there are several other martial artists who study from Goutetsu's school. And I tried that before with cites, and someone took it out without reason (hence this article being created). They did the same with my Goutetsu and Gouken articles. Perhaps put this information into Goutetsu's article? Maybe change the article name to "Hado No Chikara", since Goutetsu definitely invented, or atleast found that? Really, "Ansatsuken" is what Capcom Japan call it in the instruction manuals and on their website. For lack of a better name, since Capcom of Japan doesn't want to give it a name, it's the only one I can think of. Also, I agree on taking out the technique lists (except for the original 6 techniques, and 3 elements) -BB Mofo 16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • We have separate articles for Goutetsu and Gouken? We have a separate article for Shun Goku Satsu? Yikes. This article needs to be cleaned up with a chainsaw, and Goutetsu, Gouken, and much of the discussion of backstory and the Dark Hadou from the Ryu, Ken, Gen, and Sakura(!) articles needs to be merged here. (Also, Hadouken and Shoryuken need to be merged and dab'ed, and Shun Go-whatever needs to be merged to Akuma's article.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong merge and lose most of the OR and movelists. This is in bad need of cleanup and shouldn't be its own title, but there's stuff here worth saving. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hm. There's a lot of disorganized info here, and this might not be a bad merge target. As such, I think this should be kept. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP—Ryu, Ken, and Akuma are all practitioners of this martial art, though Akuma practices a more forbidden variation of it. Ryu nor Ken practices Shotokan Karate. — Dark Insanity 03:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - This is valid material. Ryu and Ken clearly praticed the style outlined in this article and the game's clearly support this. When I learned of the reasoning for the porposed deletion of this article, I was horrfied. An discussion on the talkpage should have been made proceeding this action, and the user in favor of deletion should have done his homework. This is not an canidate for deletion.

On top of this, the user is extremely new to the way Wikipedia works. looking at this edit count, he has only ammased 272 edits, of which an mere 9 have been directed at talk. User has also not demonstrated an knowledgeable background in the series or wikipedia policy, as he has not contributed to any character pages or any discussion pertaining to them. Poor reasoning for deletion does not dictate what gets kept and what gets deleted. Wikipedia does. To attempt to pass off this article as an threat to the encyclopedia is a travesty. As for sources, please read Tiamat's Street Fighter Plot Guide for information.

Additionally, I'm pleased to confirm that Evan is incorrect. Mistranslations absolutely does not determine what is kept and what is not kept on Wikipedia. It's merely an fictional fighting style created by an company for an video game. Where there is disagreement (and there is clearly disagreement here) then it isn't much of a guide. Which is why we need discussion on talkpages before making hasty actions usch as this. The article is valid, and does not meet the Wikipedia:deletion policy. Please Evan, just read it. --Zero^Talk 12:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• MOVE WP:NOR. The first line claims that "Ansatsuken" is a "fictional martial art... in the Street Fighter series". Which it isn't. Why don't I make an article that says "Boxing" is a fictional martial art practiced by Mike Bison, then? Furthermore, you have Gen listed in here when he practices a different style. (Two, actually.) Some fan on the net (Tiamat) is not a credible source. Please, show me where it says anything about "Ansatsuken" in the Japanese-language entry [2]. It doesn't. If mistranslations are OK, as you say, then the people claiming their style is "Shotokan" are more valid than Ansatsuken; "Shotokan" has been used in many more English publications. (Yes, it's wrong, too.) No, it is you who are incorrect, Megaman Zero. No specific style name has ever been given to Ryu, Ken, Gouki, etc. For the best official English-language source, try reading Street Fighter: Eternal Challenge. Nope, no "Ansatsuken" there either. If you rename it to something like "Gōtetsu-Ryū Ansatsuken" and take out the stuff about Gen I'll heartily endorse it. Evan1975 20:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh I've done all that. Please see the article's talkpage. -Zero^Talk

Great! But the name of the article needs to be moved to "Goutetsu Ansatsuken" or "Goutetsu-Ryu Ansatsuken. And the first line needs to be changed. See article's talkpage for my suggestion. Evan1975 19:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the book suggestion Evan. I've gone ahead and ordered the book for myself. I'll hold off on rewriting the article until I can thumb through it. If it's really that indepth, we can use it to check the accuracy of the other SF articles. Now that we've agreed to correct the mistakes you were concerned about, can we please remove the DELETE tag for now? There's nothing too controversial about this article so far beyond the name.--24.130.125.164 03:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - This is valid material.--Dangerous-Boy 19:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Evan has posted an requested admeddeum on my talkpage. Anyone interested is free to take an gander, as I have agreed and implemented his requested change to the article. -Zero^Talk 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As such I think its time to withdraw this afd nomination. -Zero^Talk 19:23, 12 March 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 Flowerparty■ 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] zbattle.net

The creators of the program that the article is about have said that they do not wish not to have a page in wikipedia [3] [4].If possible, protection against re-creation is asked for. (I am for there being an article, but I am acting on behalf of the zbattle.net admins)ThrashedParanoid★ 03:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 04:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into ZSNES. Ashibaka tock 05:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into ZSNES, but only because it's a nn program, not because the subject requested it. Likewise, I don't think protection against re-creation should be used just because the subject wants it... I don't think article subjects should have any special say about what happens to their articles beyond the usual legal defenses against defamation and the like, since it whatever input they have would invariably go against neutrality. --Aquillion 09:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 12:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aquillion, not the nom. WP is an encyclopedia, not a selective grouping of those who want articles written about themselves. This, however, is very nn. Staxringold 23:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:58Z
• Delete per nom, but I like the GUI :-) --MaNeMeBasat 16:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, this does seem to need a rewrite if kept (which is unlikely), but if the developers don't want it listed on Wikipedia, we might as well delete it. - XX55XX 23:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this article needs to be cleaned up, expanded, and renamed (it's "zbattle.net", not "Zbattle". I agree with what Aquillion stated, I don't think "owner/dev wanting it removed" is a valid criteria under the Deletion policy. If it was, then the Scientology page wouldn't be up right now, lol. Also, the program has somewhat of a cult following in the online SNES emulation scene, so that should qualify it for "notability". Besides, I've seen way more geekier stuff on Wikipedia that doesn't really need to be on here. FistOfFury

Yes that is true, and I do regret nominating it under the wrong reasons, but it dosen't fit the noteability guidelines by a longshot (WP:WEB and/or WP:SOFTWARE). Either way, the article seems like a plunge into advertisement for zbattle, and Wikipedia is NOT Advertisment --ThrashedParanoid★ 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Perhaps in the future it will become more pronounced in the notability department. :) Until then... FistOfFury

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.  (aeropagitica)  22:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Square Group

Advertisement, not famous, unimportant, no value.--Kcm367 03:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN ad. Draeco 04:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Royboycrashfan 04:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• advertisemnt, unimportant, not famous--218.102.87.98 08:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Eivind 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment some votes were removed by User:Kcm367, probably by accident.Eivind 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn ad. --Terence Ong 12:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Blank and redirect to Square Co., Ltd.. The term Square Group was in very limited use during the short time Square had all those various subsidiaries in existence.--み使い Mitsukai 14:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn advert. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN, ad, etc. Staxringold 23:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:59Z

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.  (aeropagitica)  21:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Plummer

NN bio. This is probably a speedy delete, but I want to submit it to concensus anyway because there's so much information. Moreover, there's actually a copyright attached to the bottom of the article. Draeco 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it's NN, but it is a blatant copyright violation. I've put a copyvio notice on the page and informed the article's creator. Hbackman 04:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A8 per the above. Royboycrashfan 04:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I agree this is a speedy delete'r. Staxringold 23:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A8, nn and blatant copy/vio.--Dakota ~ ° 08:48, 12 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  21:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tard Blog

Neologism used to describe three non-notable weblogs Paul 04:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• I apologize as I neglected to check whether this had already been nominated for deletion. Unsurprisingly, it had been (surprisingly, it was kept.) If my AFD nom should be removed then remove it. Paul 04:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm confused with the nomination. Do you consider this to be a non notable neologism? Googling for this express seems to return a blog actually called "Tard Blob", which is a blog of someone working with mentally retarded kids. joshbuddy^talk 04:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Royboycrashfan 04:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn unless someone can provide at least one instance of this blog being discussed in major media. I have no problem with the subject matter, there's just no evidence that the blog is notable. dbtfz^talk 04:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable evidence provided of significance. Capitalistroadster 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because I voted keep last time. Also, it has a fanlisting here if that means anything. I couldn't find it published anywhere, but that's probably because it was too offensive for the mainstream media. Ashibaka tock 06:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fewer Google results than my site and no media mentions that I can find. -- Kjkolb 11:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unveifiable. --Terence Ong 12:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Dbtfz. --Biggles 14:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Putting 3 unencyclopedic things together doesn't result in an encyclopedic thing. Ned Wilbury 14:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is real, as I've read the blogs, but I doubt it's notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 15:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable blog.--Isotope23 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very non-notable. Staxringold 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the old VfD's reasons. BTW, your blogs aren't linked on every single page of Tucker Max's website. --Rory096 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:59Z

• Keep This is decently well known and as we all know, WP:NOT paper kotepho 13:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Probably, Tucker's side projects (Tard Blog, Slow Children at Play, Hoo-ah, etc) should be combined into one page. But since that has not been done, keep. McJeff, 12 March 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 'no consensus. —Kirill Lokshin 00:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Drew

NN bio. Though this man rose respectably high in the U.S. Armed Forces, I'm not sure that he's notable enough to merit an article. I humbly offer it up to the community's judgement. Draeco 04:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. The subject of the article has an admirable military record, but does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. dbtfz^talk 04:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 05:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I would find keep but I cannot find any verifiable evidence on him. If I could be assured that this guy was an authentic USAF general, I would vote to keep and clean up. As I can't I will abstain for the moment. Capitalistroadster 05:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Finding info could be hard if he was a relatively minor general and has been retired since 1979 as the article purports. I've solicited info on the article creator's talk page at User talk:Mrmanhattanproject, hopefully he can shed some light. Draeco 05:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if verified, general officers and flag officers are usually notable. — Adrian Lamo ·· 19:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if verified, per Adrian. Highly positioned generals are notable, IMO. Staxringold 23:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think this should be keeped, I have an alumni article regarding this guy.

mrmanhattanproject

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. W.marsh 00:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latsaoc

I do not know who began this afd process, but they seem to have abandoned it after putting up the first (afd1) tag of the nomination process. I have elected to flesh out the nom, but the topic seems notable enough to me to warrant a keep. Draeco 04:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Merge per the above below. Royboycrashfan 05:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Arkanuk Obesh. Microtonal 05:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as probable hoax. User:Connorx created all of Namuh, Latsaoc, Arkanuk Obesh, and Against band on March 6th. A google search gets no hits for "Arkanuk Obesh" or for "Latsaoc". The only ref I could find for "Namuh" is here: [5]. Note that "namuh" is "human" backwards, and "latsaoc" is "coastal" backwards. User:Connorx appears to be adding nonsense to WP. Slowmover 20:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Staxringold 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax. -- Krash (Talk) 00:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if Arkanuk Obesh is deleted, otherwise merge. -- Koffieyahoo 09:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax or deity made up one day in school. Weregerbil 18:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Connorx keeps taking the AfD tags off of these articles. That in itself counts as a strike against this hoax. --Descendall 03:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, otherwise delete; if that fails, then delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 10 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  21:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Namuh

Just like Latsaoc, I have adopted this afd nom, but in this case the article seems worthy of a merge into Latsaoc and/or Arkanuk Obesh. Draeco 04:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Merge per the above below. Royboycrashfan 05:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Arkanuk Obesh. Microtonal 05:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Arkanuk Obesh. --Terence Ong 12:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as probable hoax. User:Connorx created all of Namuh, Latsaoc, Arkanuk Obesh, and Against band on March 6th. A google search gets no hits for "Arkanuk Obesh". The only ref I could find for "Namuh" is here: [6]. Note that "namuh" is "human" backwards, and "latsaoc" is "coastal" backwards. User:Connorx appears to be adding nonsense to WP. Slowmover 20:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Staxringold 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax. -- Krash (Talk) 00:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if Arkanuk Obesh is deleted, otherwise merge. -- Koffieyahoo 09:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax or City Of Gods made up one day in school. Weregerbil 18:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Connorx keeps taking the AfD tags off of these articles. That in itself counts as a strike against this hoax. --Descendall 03:29, 10 March 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 as article with no assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 07:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandria Trista-Durden

NN, vanity. Google search reveals 28 hits, most of which are Wikipedia. Birthday entry on May 1 should also be removed. Microtonal 05:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Done. I vote delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 05:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although I applaud her desire to become a speech-language pathologist. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:38, 7 March 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. Flowerparty■ 00:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revaz Dogonadze

Delete. Primary contributor has a history of contributing suspect data to Wikipedia... Folajimi 05:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, sufficiently notable. Royboycrashfan 05:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up and/or verify as necessary. "The article content is suspect" is not a valid criterion for AFD. Microtonal 05:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I challenge you to defend "Quantum Biophysics" a legitmate field of science. Folajimi 05:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Before you respond, I would encourage you to check the logs; time window should be about a year or so ago, give or take a month... Folajimi 05:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What the article said at some undetermined point in the past is not particularly relevant. I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to hunt down a particular edit or editor to which you object. As the article stands now, there are no references to anything called "quantum biophysics". And even if there were, you disagreeing with the content of the article is not a legitimate reason to nominate it for deletion. Please read the deletion policy. Microtonal 05:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think he's notable per the college professor test. I note that Marcus references him twice in his Nobel Lecture of 1992 [7]. Agree that the reason put forth for deletion should be based on established deletion policy. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We've had a battle in the past about this issue, and the article does need watching, but that is no reason to delete it. Noisy | Talk 09:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, lots of google hits... but most of the sources are not what I would consider to be reliable, 3rd party reporting. There appears to be a strong element of WP:OR here. No opinion on inclusion, but if this is kept (and it would appear that is where consensus is headed) it needs a verifibility tag.--Isotope23 17:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Considering that the WP:BIO rule set includes an item known as "the professor test" (which I was unaware of prior to tagging this article), it seems that the AfD is rendered ineffective. As such, I concede on this matter. Folajimi 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. Staxringold 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. Quantum Biophysics is very important field. I inform you about some important publications in this field: 1. Pullman B., Quantum biophysics, Acta Biochim.Biophys.Acad.Sci.Hung., 12 (2), 149-162, 1977; 2. Kmiya S., Yamamoto S., Quantum biophysics of vision; Statistical estimation of the threshold number of quanta, Jpn.J.Physiol., 3 (3), 238-248, 1953; 3. Masao Kotani, On the Electronic State of Iron in Hemoglobins with a short Introduction to Problems of Quantum Biophysics, Rev.Mod.Phys., 35, 717-720, 1963; 4. Nelson W.C., Quantum Biophysics, Academy Press Rio Rancho, NM, USA, 1992. Prof. Dr. Zurab D. Urushadze, 8 March 2006

[edit] Do-over time

• First, things first. My apologies to all who have responded so far; I should have done a better job of explaining my case. As Noisy has suggested, I had discovered historical data which led me to use the AfD tag. For the archived information on this subject, please visit the following addresses:

1. Talk:Quantum_mechanics/Archive2
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zurab Urushadze
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 14

There is more I would like to say on the subject, but that will have to wait until I am centered again... Folajimi 16:05, 7 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  21:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endway

Delete. Seems to be poor advertising. Wickethewok 05:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spamvertising. Royboycrashfan 05:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spamvertisement. --CrypticBacon 05:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advert. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spamad. --Terence Ong 11:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spamvert. Note use PROD. :P Computerjoe 22:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. Staxringold 23:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement. Bad ideas 01:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 03:00Z

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.  (aeropagitica)  21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mikhail Volkenshtein

Primary contributor has a history of contributing shady data to Wikipedia... Folajimi 05:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up and/or verify as necessary. "The article content is suspect" is not a valid criterion for AFD. Microtonal 05:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• I would gladly support your vote, as soon as you can prove that "Quantum Biophysics" is a valid field of study. (To avoid duplication, I would encourage you to follow the discussion regarding the Revaz Dogonadze article.)

Cheers. Folajimi 05:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this nomination is not much different from the Revaz Dogonadze one. Royboycrashfan 05:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a google search for M. E. Volkenshtein turns up enough to verify the important parts of the article's contents, and he seems to meet WP:BIO. --Aquillion 10:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:BIO. --Terence Ong 11:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment meets WP:BIO if any of it is actually true. I couldn't WP:V it so I'd suggest a source and verifiable tag on the article.--Isotope23 17:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Staxringold 23:47, 7 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  21:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lee/jeffries

Delete. nn website. Wickethewok 05:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:VAIN, WP:WEB, WP:SPAM, and WP:BALLS. Royboycrashfan 05:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Royboycrashfan -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Royboycrashfan. I got a chuckle out of this one. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 05:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Royboycrashfan. MIKE FOR A DRUNKER/STONER CANADA EH! Mike _{(T C)} 07:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Royboycrashfan. --Terence Ong 11:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete seriously - this thing should never have lived for more than 3 minutes. --Bachrach44 15:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Royboycrashfan. However, it is not a speedy. It was tagged as patent nonsense, which it isn't, and websites cannot currently be speedied. Stifle 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Royboycrashfan. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Funny, but NN vanity. Microtonal 20:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete despite the fact they've posted about us :P Computerjoe 22:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 03:00Z

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.  (aeropagitica)  21:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KOTRT

A drinking game, created by univeristy students in the United States. First off, Wikipedia Is Not A How To Guide, which apart from one sentance, this article is. That one sentance makes the article's claim to notability, but that claim is not backed up by Google. Searching for "Knights of The Round Table" "drinking game" -wikipedia brings up 135 unique hits, most of which don't mention a drinking game by this name, and about a third of those that do (from the ones I checked) concern drinking games created in response to the Monty Python movie, which means a failure of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Adding the qualifier of Indiana to the search, to try and pin down the creation of the game (Indiana University, according to the article) provides a total of 38 uniques, none of which refer to a drinking game of this name. I'll leave it to you kiddies. -- Saberwyn 05:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Clean up? Merge into drinking game, maybe? Since drinking games are all pretty much anecdotal, anyway, and this certainly isn't the only one with its own WP article, I don't see the harm in keeping it, provided it can be cleaned up. Delete, unless it can be verified. Microtonal 20:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I am suspicious of this already after reading about how it is "continuing in popularity." As I've said before, Wikipedia is not for things made up at keg parties last weekend. Or last month, for that matter. Daniel Case 06:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Royboycrashfan 06:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable and WP:NOT a respository for howtos. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no merge unless there's verifiable info. Ned Wilbury 14:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT unless good verifiable evidence is presented prior to end of discussion showing that the game exists as described and has reasonably widespread popularity. As always, "content must be verifiable" and "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." If not deleted via AfD, I intend to remove the unsourced material from the article, which currently would be all of it. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT.--Isotope23 17:25, 7 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  21:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peasant Revolt (band)

• Delete no proof of notability Wickethewok 05:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity as is. Royboycrashfan 06:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, probably a valid speedy. Ned Wilbury 14:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete they have a website, but the forum only has 1 post MadCow257 16:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Unless they sell enough casettes to meet the criteria. Bad ideas 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable musical group. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 03:00Z
• Delete Okay, so I wrote this before reading WP:MUSIC. My mistake, so go ahead and delete it. User:Tricklin 8:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I am a member of the band, and I can say that we have almost no notability. This article was written before the rules were read by Tricklin. Forgive him, for he knows not what he does.
• Delete Aritcle created by the band's bass player; notability is next to nothing. Canaen 08:50, 9 March 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. W.marsh 23:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolás Rosselló

NN, vanity. Microtonal 05:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no real assertion of notability. Royboycrashfan 06:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Appears to have been created by subject of the article. Sarge Baldy 07:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No relevant google hits with and without accent marks MadCow257 16:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He's referenced in es:Anarquismo although he doesn't have an article of his own. But he's been in that article a while and I think he'd have gotten short shrift if Spanish speakers didn't think he was notable. Dlyons493 Talk 20:49, 7 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  21:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doogate

Delete as nn website. Also creator of article has the same name as article fyi. Wickethewok 06:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as blatant spam. dbtfz^talk 06:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't make sense out of that. Royboycrashfan 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; not only is it spam, it's very poorly written spam at that. --Viridian {Talk} 07:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there such a thing as "well-written spam"?  : ) dbtfz^talk 08:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously, per the above sentiments. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 11:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 03:01Z

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.  (aeropagitica)  21:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboradate

Speedy delete Clear advert for nn website. Article clearly created by website owner. Wickethewok 06:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• SD per nom. Microtonal 06:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If this is the case then also consider deletion of PlentyofFish and the many other company bios on wikipedia?!!? - mediafill

We will, thanks for the tip. dbtfz^talk 06:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as ad for nn website. dbtfz^talk 06:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: AfD is not necessary for suggesting speedy deletions. Royboycrashfan 06:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  Gee I think I am going to mark microsoft for deletion. Looks like an advertisement to me. Give me a break! Talk about hypocrisy. Small or large, should be treated equal!- mediafill

  Above user is the author of this page (but you knew that). --Kinu ^t/_c 07:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment if this article is deleted, consider deleting newly added link to Collaboradate ad pr in Online dating service. Wickethewok 06:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• This isn't a speedy deletion candidate in the strictest sense. I've removed the tag. - brenneman^{T}{L} 07:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hey Wickethewok why don't you also look at the statistics I added in Online dating service. Go bother someone else! mediafill
• Comment - the statistics are fine. However, Alexa ranks this webpage around 1.5 mil. Also, this site gets a 404 for me. Wickethewok 07:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn website. --Terence Ong 11:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, awkward name, was founded this year. — Adrian Lamo ·· 19:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Computerjoe 22:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement. Bad ideas 01:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 03:01Z

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. -Splash^talk 23:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veronica Stark

Non notable. Performer has less than 10 movies to her credit and there are no other claims to notability as far as can be determined. Thus delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 06:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy A7, does not assert notability. Royboycrashfan 06:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A7 per nomination. Have tagged as such. -- Saberwyn 06:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• I have removed the speedy tag. I disagree that being an actress with an IMDB entry (and some 10 films) is not an assertion of notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, alot of Wikipedia unworthy people are on IMDb. Royboycrashfan 07:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A7 was not made to eliminate all the articles on people who don't meet WP:BIO. It was mostly intended for people writing articles about themselves, particularily schoolchildren. (The "John is a smart guy who attends the high school in downtown. He enjoys playing soccer and is also good at volleyball. His best subjects are history and geography" type of thing). The deletion of such articles was so non-controversial that a speedy criterion could be implemented. But when a person gets an IMDB entry, it is conceivable that some people might want to look up the person, and conceivable that some people might vote to keep it, and therefore the full AFD process is preferable. That said, I have no opinion if this article should be kept. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Most of her 10 'film' credits relate to pornography 'clipshows'. Basically she's been filmed having sex a on ten occasions over a seven year period. That's It. I will concede that it is a 'claim to fame', and tagging as A7 may have been the incorrect proceedure to follow. However, WP:BIO suggests that Wikipedia articles for actors should occur for "Notable actors and television personalities", where "notable" is defined as major association with well known films or television productions, gauged through national-level publications, large fan-bases, independant biographies, or commerical endoresements. Of which this young lady has none. -- Saberwyn 07:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: if this wasn't a porn actress it would probably be kept with little opposition. I am not arguing that it should, I just wish regular actors and actresses that happen to have IMDb entries were treated the same. -- Kjkolb 11:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: Interesting point. Perhaps you should bring this up at the Wikipedia:Village Pump, not on an obscure AFD, so that this issue can get the attention it rightfully deserves. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 20:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't worry. I spread my complaining all around. ;-) Kjkolb 04:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 11:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable artist, not speedy-able. — Adrian Lamo ·· 19:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete according to WP:BIO. Sjakalle's arguments about speedy should be studied carefully. I have been monitoring speedy deletion nominations carefully and there are a number of them where speedy deletion was tagged yet there was a clear and credible assertion of notability in the article. Capitalistroadster 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Just so I know for the future, can you point it out to me in this case, please? -- Saberwyn 21:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "Stark appeared in several films from European studio Private." Stifle 02:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Conceeded. -- Saberwyn 20:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Under contract with Private and Vivid and people want to delete this? Not me. That's the porn gold standard. Those trying to speedy this should immediately review CSD. -- JJay 02:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay Jcuk 22:02, 12 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  21:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacAMD

Delete - WP is not a crystal ball Xorkl000 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete open and closed case of crystal ball.Wickethewok 06:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I almost defended it... until I read it. Very crystalballish. "could quite possibly make Steve Jobs the richest man in the world" ---J.Smith 06:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Royboycrashfan 06:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Speculative, unverifiable. --Mysidia (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't even think its possible, needs some SSE3 thingy-ma-bobber or some other crap but either way this is orignal research, a theory, and a prediction all of which do not belong here. Try Google's new webpage service. Mike _{(T C)} 07:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What? There are AMD CPUs that implement SSE3 (Venice and San Diego cores for instance) and even if there were not you can get away with only SSE2 with some modifications. Not that any of that matters, as I'm quite sure if Apple wanted to have OSX run on AMD chips they could make it happen. kotepho 14:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP isn't a crystal ball. --MaNeMeBasat 15:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 03:01Z
• Delete NOR, crystal ball, POV, I could go on kotepho 14:05, 10 March 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. Flowerparty■ 22:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penny Sanchez

Cartoon character from a barely-notable TV show. This article can barely be more then a stub and it's content would be better off merged into the main ChalkZone article. Note: This was previously prodded. The prod was removed to turn the page into a redirect. The redirect has disappeared and the article has reappeared. ---J.Smith 06:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, important character on the show. Royboycrashfan 06:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into ChalkZone, or failing that, just delete. No matter how important this character is on the show, the show itself isn't high-profile enough to warrent more than one article. --Aquillion 09:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, reluctantly as I think Wikipedia would be better off without articles on TV show characters, but precedent seems to be to keep them, even if not very notable. She appears to be an important character (I haven't seen the show), the other characters have their own articles and there is too much to merge without an extreme reduction in content. -- Kjkolb 10:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is one of the better Category:ChalkZone characters articles, but some of the other smaller ones could be merged to a list of characters article -- Astrokey44|talk 12:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Ned Wilbury 14:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think a cartoon character that has no life outside of it's cartoon should have it's own article. Bart Simpson (and the like) are different because they have a life outside of "The Simpsons". Penny Sanchez does not. ---J.Smith 18:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You think so? Then let's nominate Sandy Cheeks for deletion, too.

Royboycrashfan 22:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to flood the process. But, since you mention it, I'll start a mass-delete/merge on AFD tonight when I get home. ---J.Smith 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Not a bad idea. It doesn't have any sources (the talk page has skepticism about the factuality of some of the items, actually), nor does it assert the notability of the subject. But that article is at least different in that it is a spin off of an article too long to accomodate it, the SpongeBob SquarePants character guide, which was a spin off of an article too long to accomodate it SpongeBob SquarePants. That isn't true of ChalkZone. Шизомби 23:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as above. I'm in complete agreement with J.Smith's comment, as well. Microtonal 20:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per J.Smith. JoshuaZ 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge all ChalkZone characters to ChalkZone per above and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). CZ is a fairly short article, and there's no reason why it can't accomodate descriptions of all the characters there. Never heard of the show before, myself. Шизомби 22:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. How can a TV show on a major TV network be borderline notable? --Rory096 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: this isn't about the TV show. This is about a character on it. ---J.Smith 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. But the nomination's reason was that the TV show wasn't notable. --Rory096 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Reread the nom, that's not what was said - the TV show was "barely-notable", the character article could "barely be more than a stub," and the nominator thought a merge was appropriate. I'm guessing AfD was undertaken because doing a merge without one might have been controversial among the show's fans, but I don't know. Not every TV show on a major network is notable, and those that are will differ in how notable they are. Шизомби 01:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The nom still insinuated that since the TV show was barely notable, a character on it wasn't. I disagree that the article can only be barely more than a stub, look at Sandy Cheeks for example, as Royboycrashfan pointed out. Hell, it's longer than most articles right now. --Rory096 02:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Please understand my issue here... I think that a character that has no life outside of the context of it's TV show shouldn't have it's own article. You keep mentioning that other character... I think it should be merged too. I wanted to see how this played out before I went to delete/merge the others. ---J.Smith 07:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The whole point of having a reference like the Wikipedia is to find information about something you may never have heard of. No one needs a reference they already have memorized.Don Jaime 08 Mar 2006

Comment You can add your sig by adding four tildes ~~~~ after your post. Шизомби 07:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The content isn't going to be deleted. It will be condensed and then merged. It will then create a more comprehensive article and in the end a better resource. ---J.Smith 07:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I happen to be the one who wrote the article as well as uploaded the picture, and I think I did a good job with it, so I see no reason to delete it. Besides, Teamo Supremo wasn't notable enough either, but I don't see the pages I wrote for its characters being listed for deletion. - Nintendo Maximus

Noone has said to delete the content. Please re-read the nom. Delete isn't an option. What is happening to other articles is beside the point. However, there is a policy about this and the policy sais these should be merged. ---J.Smith 00:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Which policy is that? --Rory096 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). If you prune out the redundent/unverifiable/unimportant info fromt he artical, it would be down to a paragraph and would fit very nicely in the main artical or in a List of ChalkZone Characters (or some such). ---J.Smith 08:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandy Cheeks and why it's a bad example:

Regarding Sandy Cheeks: This character is a bad example. I looked it up and realised it was a sponge-bob character. It has a life outside of the TV show. Merchandising, a movie, appearances in video games, etc. ---J.Smith 08:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

None of that is noted in the article, however, and also my comment above: it doesn't have any sources, and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Шизомби 08:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well true about that... but that has nothing to do with my point. Those are arguments to be made in an AFD/Penny. My point is that the argument can be made (even if the article is poorly written) ---J.Smith 08:53, 8 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  21:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NCW WRESTLING

i smell a hoax Xorkl000 06:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFT and WP:HOAX. Royboycrashfan 06:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a nn-club. It gets a few g-hits, so it's likely not a hoax, but even so, it's still a nn-club. ---J.Smith 06:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Not quite {{db-club}}, but should still go -- speedily. — Adrian Lamo ·· 00:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - satisfied that it is not a hoax as per J.Smith's comment above, but it still not notable --Xorkl000 12:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as per J.Smith's vote Cje 08:08, 11 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  21:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panoptic Enterprises

Delete - notability as per WP:CORP and advertising to boot Xorkl000 06:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. Royboycrashfan 07:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, nn. --Terence Ong 11:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per User:Royboycrashfan. --BigglesTheGreat 14:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cje 13:04, 9 March 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 REDIRECT to Heavy metal music. That this should be a redirect is clear, and I'm not able to distinguish one target from the other, so I'll simply make the redirect that was argued with evident knowledged. That can be changed by anyone, of course. -Splash^talk 23:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional metal

Bad clone article of the classic metal article. The article's sole purpose is to promote several bands. It also goes on to say that bands such as Queen are inheritantly Metal music, which is just nonsense. Delete and redirect to Classic Metal. Ley Shade 06:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I oppose this deletion, since earlier pre-80s form of heavy metal needs an article. And by the way, what is the need of deleting every other article.

Red Hot Sheena|talk 13:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. This article looks like classic metal lite. Any useful information can be merged. I can't determine if this is an actual term or not. Most of the Google hits turn up "traditional metal" as opposed to traditional metal. Isopropyl 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment its not a term used, except interchangebly with Classic Metal. Heavy Metal Music and List of heavy metal genres both show this. Its also noteworthy that Sheena removed the AFD from the page claiming that it wasnt going to be deleted because she said so. Ley Shade 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment As a one-time fan of this genre in the early 1970s, the term used in my region (Southern California) was consistently "hard rock." Should genre origin be re-labelled? Seriously, I don't know.-- ZincOrbie 19:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Commment. An article for hard rock already exists. Isopropyl 20:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment And that article seems sufficient - although I've never considered Queen to be amongst that group.-- ZincOrbie 21:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Traditional metal isn't a genre especially since the bands play drastically different music and certainly do not make up a scene. It is only useful as a way to distinguish the early Metal bands from later ones, but we already have Heavy Metal for that. I would be ok with a merge except that this article doesn't say anything that Classic Metal, Heavy Metal or Metal don't already say. marnues 19:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Traditional Delete (or is that Classic Delete?) per ZincOrbie.--み使い Mitsukai 05:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Isopropyl. Royboycrashfan 07:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Classic Metal. Eivind 11:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Eivind. --BigglesTheGreat 14:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect or merge Assuming people actually commonly use the term. ZincOrbie 19:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Eivind Oldelpaso 21:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Heavy metal music, where the topic is covered much more adequately in this section. Don't redirect to classic metal, which is something different. I would support having a separate article for Early heavy metal if it expanded signficantly on the section cited above. dbtfz^talk 21:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Heavy metal music. That's really where people should be going if they type Traditional Metal.marnues 10:01, 8 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  21:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stiob salat

Words fail me. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete definition only. nn. Wickethewok 06:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef, unverifiable. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable definition; neologism? A great candidate for {{prod}}. AppleMacD 07:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it's nothing but a dicdef, shall be nowhere on Wiki. Royboycrashfan 07:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• This HAS to be BJAODN! It's gold! -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary i.e. dicdef. --Terence Ong 11:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Never heard of it. It's just a hoax to make fun of people from Western Norway (the loadspeaker part). Eivind 11:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN this. It broke my brain, so it should be worth the trip there.--み使い Mitsukai 14:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN I agree with Samir. It's unique. Fan1967 15:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN'd it. Hynca-Hooley 15:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely BJAODN. Surreal. And I do mean "bathtub full of pink power-tools" surreal. Microtonal 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN, and it's the first good BJAODN candidate in a while. — Adrian Lamo ·· 00:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not , and, it made me hungry. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 03:03Z

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:Marudubshinki — Adrian Lamo ·· 01:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mismanagement

Some editors rant against his or her U.S. Navy superiors Gene Nygaard 07:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - A6 - attack. AppleMacD 07:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A6 per all above. Royboycrashfan 07:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy redirected - someone took the liberty of redirecting this page to management, which is (IMHO) a good solution. Unless there's some dissent, I think an admin should just close this debate. --Bachrach44 15:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd endorse closure, but the history still contains a personal attack vs. one LCDR Martinez. I think this should be deleted, and maybe redirected after deletion. I'll probably tag this for deletion as {{db-attack}} . — Adrian Lamo ·· 00:34, 8 March 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. Flowerparty■ 17:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First supercentenarians

This is a redundant article (better merged to supercentenarians). Also, un-encyclopaedic choice of topics (why oldest French and not oldest English, for example?). Haphazard construction, borrows liberally from other sources but downgrades the information by making the lists any way they want to. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR, I guess. Stifle 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, valuable info, WP:NOR is not intended for cases like this. Kappa 12:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep many of the people listed have articles about them -- Astrokey44|talk 12:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• This article has very considerable overlap with another, Oldest people, which is more coherent and better organised. I am bothered by the lack of sources in the current article, and am concerned that the quality of Oldest people might be reduced by a merger. Therefore, delete. Sliggy 13:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There is considerable overlap not only with "Supercentenarians" and "Oldest people" but with Longevity claims (which fills a nich dealig with the more with the less solid cases) as well. One of them should go, and for reasons stated above, it looks like this is the one. Gene Nygaard 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The other pages have a sensible organization, but this one is arbitrary (why France and not the UK, for example?) 70.89.83.190 06:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment absent evidence of information about the UK being kept out of there, I don't see that as a valid argument for deletion. Gene Nygaard 22:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There is no logic or order to this article. Look at the others: Supercentenarian: a person verified to be 110 or older. Longevity claims: unverified claims to 110+ that aren't preposterous. Longevity myths: preposterous claims to extreme longevity stretched beyond normal reasons. Oldest People: Lists of the world's oldest person, oldest woman, oldest man, and oldest by nationality. First supercentenarians, instead, arbitrarily lists what it wants to under no order or format. For example, the article appears to be started as "first person to reach 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, etc." But then what do "oldest person by race" and "oldest by French nationality" have to do with the "first" to reach 110? Again, we don't see a systematic listing of oldest by every nationality with a large dataset. Instead, we find that the article starter is French, so he made a French list. That's arbitrary and un-encyclopaedic reasoning. 69.180.8.87 07:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per Sliggy. --Snargle 21:40, 10 March 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. Flowerparty■ 00:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 40 Glocc

User:LILVOKA believes this subject to be non-notable and non-verifiable ^[8], so I am assisting him with the AFD nomination.

• No vote as the co-facilitator of this nomination. Hall Monitor 17:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  Keep, appears to be listed at the All Music Guide [9] with a January 2003 album "The Jakal" and draws in a fair number of hits on Google. [10] Will leave a note for LILVOKA regarding this. Hall Monitor 19:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, stub with potential. Royboycrashfan 07:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, on second thoughts, until I see evidence that it passes WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, needs to be expanded. Inventm 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, I resent this though. I believe that this is a rapper who has no impact whether he is a part of G-Unit or not. But if they can prove to me that it's notable for Wikipedia, then I support it. But as of today, G-Unit has the four members, Mobb Deep, Olivia and (yes) The Game. LILVOKA 21:33, 10 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  21:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imaginary antecedent

Was previously nominated for deletion and no-consensused, although for me it seems like a consensus to delete. It is apparently non-notable (93 Google links) original research not citing its sources and overall lacking coherency and encyclopedic tone (see last section). Therefore I renominate it for deletion. - Sikon 18:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, sadly, it's an interesting article but it does appear to original thinking. Kappa 12:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 07:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Rynne 18:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting, but almost certainly original reseach. Wikipedia's not the venue for this. dbtfz^talk 20:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Neither 'imaginary' nor 'antecedent' is invented for the article, nor is 'imaginary antecedent' an original term. The topic is not invented for the subject matter, the subject matter necessitates the topic. Extremely interesting, useful argument that I found on my search for information related to self-reference and utilitarianism. Oliver Keenan 14:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Before messaging me in relation to this vote, please note that I have already studied Wikipedia:No original research. I am certain that with some effort most of what is stated in this article could be verified in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability and referenced. Oliver Keenan 14:59, 11 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  21:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Félix Malpica Valverde

Delete Unverifiable statements of fact. Not notable enough. Probably will loose this one, but looks highly suspect at best. San Saba 20:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Save Whoa - don't delete the guy (he's real), delete the unverifiable statements. I'll do what I can to try to verify this stuff from Español websites. This is not [completely] Mexican nonsense. - Eric 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - can't see any reason to delete. Stifle 01:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Just because he isn't an american radio personality dosen't mean he dosen't exist. Looks notable enough to me, just needs a little TLC. Mike _{(T C)} 07:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity and listcruft at its best. Royboycrashfan 07:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mike. Eivind 11:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, sounds good and notable. Roy's too rough. Crzrussian 13:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 32 years of running Líderes de Opinión, on radio and television, incl Grupo FM Radio, Veracruz.seems pretty notable to me. [11] Dlyons493 Talk 20:55, 7 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  20:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macky auditorium

Article on one building on Univeristy of Colorado-Boulder campus Grocer 22:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge into University of Colorado at Boulder Jedi6 22:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable, or merge per Jedi6. Stifle 01:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Purge. Sub-article overkill. Metta Bubble 05:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, home of a symphony orchestra, do not merge. Kappa 11:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per the above. Royboycrashfan 07:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. --Aquillion 09:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Jedi6. Sliggy 13:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Jedi6. --BigglesTheGreat 14:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: individual buildings would have to be pretty remarkable to ge their own articles. Ned Wilbury 14:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 03:04Z

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.  (aeropagitica)  20:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Nalle

Cna't verify any of the claims that his fonts are used in the films listed, google brings up nothing except what is listed in the article, just cant verify his nobality Mike _{(T C)} 07:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

what does 'nobality' mean? As for proving the fonts are used where they are, the way you do that is by looking at the fonts used in a film and then comparing them with samples of the fonts from the publisher. Films don't generally list font credits. The only thing the publisher could do - and it might violate customer privacy - is provide proof that the company producing a film or someone working for them had bought the font. The point of all this being that where a given font is used is something which anyone can verify for themselves, but which cannot be provided in a Wikipedia article unless there were another article somewhere on which films use which fonts or something like that which could be linked to, and there just aren't articles like that. The point is that these claims are absolutely verifiable if you just compare samples of fonts in the film with samples of the fonts in question. To demonstrate this I direct you to these two image links: http://www.fontcraft.com/scriptorium/previews/beynkales.jpg and http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B000AMPZGC/ref=dp_image_0/102-9504945-7754566?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=5174&s=music - the first is a sample of the Beynkales font and the second is a sample from Amazon of the film title using it. Here's a link to an article referencing the use of another font in another film with samples which demonstrate the relationship - http://www.fontcraft.com/csa/fontcraftcomments.php?id=150_0_4_0_C - your google searching also isn't terribly good. Try a search for 'scriptorium' and 'tim burton' to find many references to the use of Scriptorium fonts in Burton's films and others as well. I can link to many other movie titles which use Scriptorium fonts. Should links to the images referencing the fonts be included in a Wikipedia article? That's really the only form of proof there can be.

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 07:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --BigglesTheGreat 14:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Unreferenced, unverifiable. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 03:04Z

General references to fonts and products have now been replaced with specific links to samples demonstrating the connections.

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.  (aeropagitica)  20:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BesMella

Gamefancruft, fails WP:WEB with no references and an Alexa rank of 2 million. Melchoir 07:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete agreed with above. Wickethewok 07:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO, WP:CRUFT, and WP:WEB. Royboycrashfan 07:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gamecruft, nn and neologism. --Terence Ong 11:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There isn't as single reason on earth for this to be in Wikipedia. Eivind 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Royboycrashfan. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 03:05Z

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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)  20:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] freeones

not notable. Porn sites are a dime a dozen. Jimboy0 07:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 07:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: this article has been nominated for deletion before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeones, back in November 2005. The result was No Consensus.

• Alexa rating of 658, with 496 inbound links per Alexa search. I still hold the opinion that this site is not much more than a links repository, but think the alexa rating is going to save it. Delete -- Saberwyn 08:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alexa ranks can be manipulated, which is not improbable when dealing with a free porn site. Take a look at the Google results, for instance--sure, a ton of hits, but (aside from the fact that it's a word used in other contexts) the vast majority of them seem to be linkfarms of some sort or another, with random collections of words. --Aquillion 09:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because it is a link farm, porn being irrelevant. -- Kjkolb 10:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another pr0n TGP. The Alexa rank is typical for this type of site as Aquillion mentioned. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Alexa Computerjoe 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Alexa ranking alone =! notability. — Adrian Lamo ·· 00:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 03:05Z
• Delete I must confess I've heard of this one, even though I'm not that into porn. (Really, I swear!) Still, there is no evidence that it satisfies WP:WEB. Setting the notability bar low for porn sites sets a bad precedent, IMO. dbtfz^talk 04:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Genb2004 22:38, 11 March 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. Flowerparty■ 00:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laxius_Power_I

The main article Laxius Power seems to have been up for a vote for deletion, which ended in it being supposedly deleted. Has somebody revived it? Regardless, this article (obviously even less than the original "Laxius Power") deals with a highly unnotable hobby project with few google hits, in fact, the first google page is the wikipedia article. Considering the harsh policy on articles on individual flash games (which will be much more popular than these kinds of games) I see no reason why this game should have it's own entry Mackan 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the bunch nn³. Eivind 12:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, per nom. No verifiable evidence of notability given. - Rynne 18:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --MaNeMeBasat 07:06, 10 March 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. Flowerparty■ 00:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laxius Power II

Article nominated for deletion by Mackan, nomination incomplete. I am assuming it is for the same reasons as expressed at the Laxius Power (discussion) and Laxius Power 1 (discussion) deletion discussions. Proceedual/no vote. -- Saberwyn 09:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --MaNeMeBasat 07:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable software. Stifle 02:26, 11 March 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. Flowerparty■ 00:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laxius Power III

Article nominated for deletion by Mackan, nomination incomplete. I am assuming it is for the same reasons as expressed at the Laxius Power (discussion) and Laxius Power 1 (discussion) deletion discussions. Proceedual/no vote. -- Saberwyn 09:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --MaNeMeBasat 07:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable software. Stifle 02:26, 11 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  20:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katies-World

Brief article on a pornography website. Article has an Alexa rating of 138 thousand. Although there are large fluctuations in the Alexa reading, it appears that the site has not breached the 50,000 mark in the past two years. Google has 267 uniques from, 1280 results, when searching for references to the site excluding the site itself, the majority of the high results appear to be broken referral pages and forum posts, degenerating into linkfarming. No evidence of newsworthy hits in Google News. In addition the website appears to fail the WP:WEB criteria, as it is externally unverifiable, and the site or model appear to have won no awards -- Saberwyn 09:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Before anyone accuses me of blindly following the Freeones deletion listed today. I will declare that I came across this article in Category:Adult websites, when trying to gauge the level of 'notability' a pornographic website (in the case of my search, Freeones) should have to be included. This article, from the few I looked at, was so far below the bar for inclusion per WP:WEB, I decided to nominate it. -- Saberwyn 09:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MadCow257 16:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nathcer 22:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (and Alexa rank in particular) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:57, 7 March 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. Flowerparty■ 00:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laxius Power

Delete. Once voted to be deleted [12], have no idea why it's still here. Small, minor game with less than 30,000 hits on Google. A highly unnotable flash game like "Shotgun Orc" generates more than 30,000. Also, extremely poorly written and biased. Mackan 09:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Not an expert on the subject but >30,000 ghits and article claims 500,000 downloads? Can't see what is "extremely poor written" in the article either, rather the opposite. Weregerbil 13:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A lot of those google hits seem to be SEO spam - see, for example, the listings at [13]. —Cryptic (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak delete. Wow that's spammy, so that takes care of the ghits. Still weak opinion due to my non-expertise. Weregerbil 15:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. RPG Maker is just barely notable; its scenarios and users aren't. —Cryptic (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cryptic. - Rynne 18:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with RPG Maker. Eivind 22:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There is already a section on Laxius Power in RPG Maker. A big one, at that.Mackan 13:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mackan --MaNeMeBasat 07:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete along with all of its friends kotepho 14:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with RPG Maker. Extremely well-known among online gamers and dabblers, deserving more than the single sentence which exists on RPG Maker page. That the deletion of a well-known project such as this can be unanimous, when there are half-a-million pokemon articles, strikes me as absurd. WBSparks 6:20pm, 10/03/05 (MST)

There are infact two sentences in the RPG Maker article about this series. If you think it deserves more feel free to add to that section. How do you define 'online gamers' as I certainly have not heard of it—then again I tend to avoid RPG Maker games and their ilk. I'm sure millions of people know what Pokèmon is and could name quite a few of them. Even then, I do not think a lot of the Pokèmon articles should exist either (and there certainly aren't 500,000 of them as they would be roughly half of Wikipedia). I'm not even sure a million people have heard of this game, much less care about it. What evidence do you have that it is widely known? kotepho 00:39, 13 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  20:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPod True Video

Delete. This is just a rumor, not real product. It might actually not even appear at all, ever. Wikipedia is no crystal ball. Peter S. 10:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 11:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, same reason. --BigglesTheGreat 14:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The word here is "rumored". Speculation, as noted above Wikipedia is no crystal ball, per WP:NOT. Secondly as rumour/speculation it automatically has problems with verifiability (see WP:V). --Blue520 14:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ---Bachrach44 15:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete into article on 5th gen iPod, reword to indicate rumor status. KirbyMeister 22:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Crystalballism, rumor filled article. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 23:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 03:07Z

Keep because it is a widely discussed topic around the net and not necessarily a total rumor. -user:rizachar

Note the above comment was posted by 68.37.149.78 and may or may not be user:rizachar.--Blue520 04:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. --Optichan 15:58, 8 March 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. There does seem to be a case here of soapboxing fairly stridently and I think the walled garden suggestions are close to the mark, having also read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyd Haley and its associated article. It is possible that a former chief scientific officer to the Dept. of Health would survive an AfD (though not certain, perhaps, since it's non-ministerial, non-elected, and non-political) but this article as is is absolutely without a doubt being used for advocacy, no matter the attempts made at advocacy-by-quote. It is full of irrelevant attacks on other scientists (it almost gets to speedy territory: "The UK medical establishment including the Department of Health regard Wakefield’s claims as junk science lacking substance", without any citation). Those editing this debate who do not seem to have some serious vested interests (including both Ombudsman and the nominator) seem to lean clearly towards deletion (including, notably, Capitalistroadster). I don't give the "two more will pop up" argument any weight in determining what to do with this article, and it's readily apparent that Leifern has turned up mainly to be unpleasant (he doesn't make even a tangential reference to the article). So it's a delete-without-prejudice to a proper, non-soapboxed, genuine article that makes the case for the notability of its subject without leaping into the very shady territory this article inhabits. -Splash^talk 23:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter_Fletcher

POV non WP:BIO. Not encyclopaedic. There are very very many retired civil service doctors in England and the only thing adduced about him is that he was to have been one witness in a trial which will not occur since the legal aid board determined it had no chance at all of success. Basically this is yet another attack page on immunisation presented as a biography - possibly we should decide that these are speedy delete candidates. DELETE Midgley 10:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Part of one user's walled garden on antivaccination activism. JFW | T@lk 12:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • • Of course, persistent attempts at stifling articles that don't fit in with the concrete jungle orthodoxy of mainstream medicine are inconsistent with the Wiki's aim of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. If anything, the offhand dismissal of a respected authority on the safety and efficacy of vaccines with comments like the above can be likened to Trantor's imperial garden, envisioned by Isaac Asimov as the only patch of green to be found on the ecumenopolis. Asimov underscored his point by postulating twenty agricultural worlds to support Trantor. Ombudsman 05:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • What on earth does Asimov have to do with this, apart from the science fiction? JFW | T@lk 05:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Perhaps it is an predicted by Hari Seldon tp attempt to suggest that the article is not without Foundation, even if it is part of an empire. Asimov would be quite clear on this stuff, and straightforward about condeming its author - he was a good scientist as well as golden age SF writer. Midgley 21:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, well, perhaps you two might to be willing to begin discussing the actual science after all. Doubts about that aside, the analogy above was offered as an attempt to get you two to see that paving over the Wiki with the preservative-laden spam of medical establishment dogma necessitates all the more, in a co-evolutionary sense, the need to protect the wilderness of medical dissent, lest the Wiki might end up needing to outsource remedies for the lack of content oriented to mere carbon based life forms. Beyond the Wiki, the predominance of such spam can be traced, in part, to the economic inequities and intellectual iniquities caused by the conspiculous conflict of interest consequences deriving from the fact that big pharma now has a cash flow of over a trillion dollars a year, and profit margins that even illicit drug cartels would envy. Asimov, like the 'humble' Imperial garden caretaker and Fletcher, never seemed to be hamstrung by such conflicts. Asimov wrote hundreds of academic texts, many dealing with biochemistry, and his depiction of Trantor evidences his intuitive understanding of systems biology. At the macro systems level, Asimov recognized Trantor's unlikely capacity for supporting an inordinately large population, and that the concrete and steel straightjacketed seat of a galactic empire would necessitate the outsourcing of agricultural support from twenty worlds. At the micro level, there is a verisimilitude with the compound cumulative effects of vaccines, which a number of scientists have shown to be inextricably associated with neotenized neurological development -- short on carbon based compounds and long on alkaline metallic compounds, resulting in the overbuild of relatively simple neurological infrastructures at the expense of the complex enzyme mediated superstructure necessary for a more normal sequencing of neurodevelopmental events. Asimov would understand that, just as he would understand that what you two have been doing, by substituting the gracile spam of orthodox dogma in the place of robust content on the scientific insights of dissenters, is tantamount to injecting the Wiki with the equivalent of adjuvants that, if unchecked, would cause the equivalent of arrested, neotenous neurodevelopment which is characteristic of autistic spectrum disorders. Say what you will, but Asimov would look askance at this AfD, just as he would look the same way at the deletionism that you two relentlessly push, and he might even compare your efforts to the lead-poisoned elite of the Roman Empire, upon whom he modeled the rulers of the decadent Trantor. No small irony there, given the poisonous effects of heavy metals. Indeed, Asimov portrayed the Imperial garden caretaker in reverential terms, and undoubtedly would have compared Fletcher with the gardener. Ombudsman 00:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's very ... wrong. Midgley 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Trantor had to fall (if only to allow for a trilogy). For it to do so, Asimov made it depend upon shipping in of food (the sums really don't add up) It is a plot device. Real life is less pliable, and in particular, causes do not derive from the result desired. For more dicussion of the narrative nature of reality/life see Terry Pratchett. But perhaps not here... Midgley 02:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Added comment: searching PubMed for "Fletcher P vaccine" gives no results. Googling for the same combination only results in hits from blogs describing his testimony. Do we need a page on every person who ever testified for an English court? Some may characterise him as "eminent scientist and high ranking authority on vaccines", but this is not quite borne out by generally used indicators. Oh, and since when has the autism epidemic spanned the globe, and what is the source of the statistic that "untold thousands of UK children [who] have become autistic and developed autistic enterocolitis"? JFW | T@lk 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  The above could be construed as misleading example of how to use a search engine. Try searching for '"Peter Fletcher" vaccine'. Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  The above could also be construed as someone who knows how to search Pubmed, where authors are Surname initial. There are a lot of non-authoritative and unreliable hits in Google, but they don't each add new and different infroamtion, it is just promiscuous reduplication. Midgley 14:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  Ombudsman's patronising attitude is typical. I'm better at searching medline and google than you, Ombi. Really. And using the quotes had occurred to me. In fact, your search yields 384 results, all from secondary sources and none giving proof that Fletcher has published anything of use in the field of vaccination. Since his testimony he's an "expert". This article could be construed as a typical example of your walled garden, which is why it will probably be deleted. JFW | T@lk 14:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 13:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep: An eminent scientist and high ranking authority on vaccines, Fletcher has shattered the illusion that the medical establishment is united in its refusal to acknowledge culpability for triggering an autism epidemic that spans the globe. For political and economic reasons, other medical authorities have been entirely unable to regognize and acknowledge the global catastrophe caused by vaccine injuries. Simply because the bulk of Fletcher's career predates the advent of the internet, there is no reason to assume his contributions to medical science are anything less than extremely noteworthy. Fletcher is noteworthy not only for the prestigious position he once held overseeing vaccine policy in the UK, but also for breaking ranks with medical authorities loudly and clearly as an expert on vaccine issues, and his statements have been reported around the world. Beyond that, he was chosen as an expert witness and played a primary role in the high profile UK lawsuit on behalf of the untold thousands of UK children who have become autistic and developed autistic enterocolitis following vaccination. He presented reports, inexplicably ignored by the court in its decision to derail the litigation, that supported the clinical evidence and observations by thousands of parents "that a triple vaccine (MMR) was causally related to the damage suffered by the children." Fletcher has been quoted widely by journalists around the world who have covered the vaccine controversy. Ironically, Midgley himself has said the only thing that he dismisses about the case presented on behalf of the children and their parents had to do with conflict of interest concerns.[14] However, the only expert testimony in the case where such concerns could easily be dismissed would be that of a retired vaccine expert and recognized authority, such as Fletcher. Ombudsman 18:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ombudsman is misrepresenting me in his polemic above, not for the first time, and I do suggest anyone who is tempted to take any part of it seriously read the actual comment I made in the BMJ Rabid Responses and consider whether this is part of a pattern of which this article is another part.

  If there had been any intent to mislead, a link leading to your comment allowing readers to judge for themselves would not have been provided. Indeed, your statement suggests that you dismiss everything about the arguments presented by Fletcher and the legal team representing the families as polemical. Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

  • • Pray tell, to what were you referring? Your BMJ rapid response seemed to be addressing the the topic at hand. There was no intent to mislead, despite what you have tried to imply with your diversionary interjection, though any misunderstanding of your BMJ response simply would stem from the fact that interpreting your comments is often quite difficult. Ombudsman 18:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I have not the slightest doubt that this was an attempt to mislead. I suggestt hat anyone in doubt looks at the reference, not at Ombod's interpretation of it. There is no point discussing this further here. Midgley 19:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If there had been any intent to mislead, a link leading to your comment allowing readers to judge for themselves would not have been provided. Indeed, your statement suggests that you dismiss everything about the arguments presented by Fletcher and the legal team representing the families as polemical. Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment One of the things about courts, at least English courts, is that very little of what they do is inexplicable. Hardly any of it is even unexplained. It isn't always trivial to obtain the actual text of the explanation, but it is perfectly clear here that the Legal Aid Board had the opportunity to consider Dr Fletcher's comments, and decided, in the light of that and the other avaialable elements of the case the bringing of which was proposed, that the case was hopeless - hence their explicable decision to not fund it further. That case has been funded IIRC to around £10M from public funds already, and I think that it was reasonable to pay to bring such concerns to law, but it is not reasonable to go on and on and on. Midgley 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ombudsman has edited my comment here[15] on this page. This is improper. Midgley 19:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd give the benefit of the doubt here; it may have been an edit conflict. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It wasn't, it was deliberate and a reason given in the comment to the edit. He didn't like the comment about the possible identity of one of the posters to BMJ Rapid Responses. Midgley 23:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of misdirection by Midgley, as the comment included a link provided to allow readers to judge for themselves, but here is Midgley's full statement addressing the topic at hand, "Parents claiming a link between MMR vaccine and autism lose final appeal for legal aid," which Midgley seemed to be addressing: The only thing that I don't understand or cannot dismiss instantly in the polemic presented as a response above is this:- "Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy." Is this a claim that mixed vaccines cause food allergy? Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is, characteristically, not the case, and is also characteristically, not germane to the page in question, which should be deleted. I object to Ombusdamn's repeated lies about me. Midgley 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not sufficiently notable per WP:BIO, part of POV editing campaign in violation of WP:NOT a forum for advocacy. I'm afraid the "rapid response" includes some "rabid response". Barno 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This page appears to be little more than a paraphrase of this newspaper article [16] (or perhaps some of the opinion comment based on that article), and appears to contain little biographical information beyond that available in that page. In fact, there is more biographical information in that newspaper article than on Peter Fletcher (for example, he was Chief Scientific Officer in the 1970s). Further, the original text of the page is extremely emotive (e.g., "In early 2006, Fletcher reignited the smoldering MMR vaccine debate", "political firestorm"), and seems incongruous with the evidence. The Daily Mail article was published on February 5, and appears to have triggered fewer than 10 other articles in a month [17], which does not fit with "reigniting" a debate. --Limegreen 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As noted above, Fletcher's career pretty much predated the internet, so the article was originally, and will be, a little more difficult to flesh out. Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • His career certainly did pre-date the internet. However, while it's possible that there is no information on the web about him is because of that, it could also be because he was not particularly notable. One of those news articles suggests his tenure with the Department of Health was not very long. Perhaps the best defence you could make for this article would be to find some actual biographical information and evidence of notability. If he is notable, 20 minutes in a public library should demonstrate that. --Limegreen 22:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete according to WP:BIO. If kept, should be rewritten according to NPOV. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Barno. AED 07:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. While the tone of the article is POV, he is as notable as many of the individuals listed on vaccine controversy. (Granted many of these individuals themselves aren't that notable either.) Andrew73 12:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps either the cast list should be on that page, or there should be a list of such people with a brief note against each of why their involvement ins interesting, and a brief note on the page of the comon features. As given thus far, the former notes would be very short, and the latter could be quite short as well, not least since it would not need to repeat the contents of the other pages. I know WP is not hierarchical, but these people have not been presented as articles about individuals, rather as examples of a corps. My own stylistic preference is actually for a little box to one side of a page or section, giving the capsule for a person referred to. It is a very different if one wishes to discuss his scholarly papers, taste in Claret, role in medical service development, the furniture in his restored Georgian house in the Home COunties, the difficulties of financing a listed building or civil service pensions none of which instances are at all specifically relevant here.Midgley 14:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Might as well keep it, since two more just like it will pop up in its place; thought I'd come back for one last edit.... Fletcher is not notable. This article is just another attempt by Ombudsman to spread more anti-immunisation idiocy around wikipedia. WHY hasn't Ombudsman been banned for using wikipedia as a soapbox? Ombudsman is just as bad as John Gohde (who will be back in little over a month after his year-long ban, what fun!), but Ombudsman makes admirable use of a thesaurus, and he's certainly got his foot in the door now with his countless POV edits on vaccine conspiracies/autism conspiracies/9-11 conspiracies/you-name-it conspiracies. DocJohnny's already gone, and why am I leaving instead of Ombudsman? --CDN99 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  Don't go. TO be fair though a senior civil servant could be notable. WHat is clear is that he is not notable for anything listed in the article, IE the article is not about him, nor is it to inform. I think Ombudsman is the antithesis of an encyclopedia autor, and although the WP credo offers a hope that by uniting thesis and antithesis we might achieve synthesis, I think it would be simpler and more effective to dispense with Ombudsman. Forthwith. Admins? Midgley 13:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ombudsman has for the second time in this discussion edited another user's comment. Is there any sanction that can be aplied over this? Midgley 14:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  This is the delete, which included a comment of his own:-

  • Aside Clifford Miller whose comments are in the BMJ rapid - but not published - responses referred to above, and who I had commented on, is one of the candidates for being the User:86.10.231.219 whose contributions and history are somewhat consistent with that idea and whose IP address is geographically adjacent to the address Mr Miller gives. (He is probably not notable, but is certainly persistent. Unaccountably, the college he examined in law at had forgotten him when I enquired of them, but I do not for a moment doubt that if they searched all their records they would eventually find him.)Midgley 18:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Restored after Ombudsman edited my comment into something he preferred to respond to. (A damnable liberty!)Midgley 22:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC) + Restored againMidgley 14:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I've seen Wikipedia articles for people who own ad agencies, not to mention creators of favorite anime. The bar for who is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia is not all that high. This is a professor who obviously has a following. He seems to be important to supporters of alternative medicine, so mobbing on this for deletion could be considered a political/ideological action. --Pansophia 02:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a professor. As this is apparently intended to be a biographical article, and you have a source that suggests he is a professor, shouldn't that be included? --Limegreen 02:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

He is not a professor, but that may have been my fault - a momentary confusion. Midgley 02:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - this is just another attempt by Midgley to remove information that is inconvenient for his opinion. Midgley has been on Wikipedia a short time, but has a consistent record of personal attacks, borderline vandalism, malicious sockpuppetry and impersonation. --Leifern 13:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is ad hominem, untrue, irrelevant to this, and part of a spree Leifern has gone on using WP as a platform to attack me. Leifern, are you sober? Please see my more detailed remark on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boyd_Haley. This sort of thing is certainly against several WP policies, but is there any actual remedy to be applied in real time? I'd be obliged if any spectators would take note of the RFC on Leifern's behaviour that I shall construct. Midgley 15:15, 12 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  20:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BIC Movie

This was speedied under A1 and then re-created. I can't find any evidence of a movie about BIC pens. I vote delete as nonnotable and probable hoax. Angr/talk 10:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete short film with no evidence of notability, can't find anything on Google either. I like Joe Cartoon myself but not each and every short film deserves a separate article. Weregerbil 12:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn film. --Terence Ong 13:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No IMDB entry, nn-film. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 23:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont delete due to the fact that i have viewed the film and it is real!

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. Flowerparty■ 17:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Muslim athletes

We don't have a List of Christian athletes do we, nor a List of Jewish athletes. So why do we need a List of Muslim ones? Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 11:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Also a repost. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 11:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a List of Jewish American athletes. --JuanMuslim ^1m 22:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that list should be deleted too. The famous (Jewish) physicist Richard Feynman once declined to be included in a book of "Jewish winners of the Nobel prize" precisely because of the inherent racist inclination of such lists. We have no way of knowing whether the names listed on that page are in fact Jewish, and if they are, we don't know if they wish to be identified that way. Slowmover 22:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Since there is no such thing as jewish or christian atheletics, but there is Islamic athletics. --Striver 11:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. In the "List of <somereligion> <someactivity>" articles can the faith of the listed be verified? Are they practicing Muslims? Or are the articles understood to mean people who live in a country that has a legal system strongly influenced by that religion? Or, since some of these athletes seem to live in predominantly non-Muslim countries, a combination of the two? The very first on the list, Abdul-Karim al-Jabbar, appears to live in the USA; is Islamic athletics relevant? I'm a bit unsure what these articles are supposed to list... Weregerbil 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's fine. some people like that sorta thing. Crzrussian 13:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Striver. --Terence Ong 13:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unuseful and unmaintainable. aren't there categories for this? Ned Wilbury 15:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have an issue with lists on Wikipedia in general. --JuanMuslim ^1m 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. In some countries Islam begets Sharia which governs all aspects of life, religious and secular. Every aspect of life is ruled by Islam, including athletics, hence Islamic athletics. Equally validly Islamic basketweaving can be written about (no fair depicting Mohammed in your basket! Must wear a burqa when weaving outside!). Leading to List of Muslim basketweavers. I'm not sure I see the encyclopedia-worthiness of all that. What do these lists mean? As a reader, am I to get a list of people living under a specific type of legal system or people who are devout Moslems (evidence please?) or what? Weregerbil 15:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Islamic athletics doesn't really seem to be relevant - most of the sorts of things in that article aren't that different to Eric Liddell not competing on a Sunday. I don't really see the needd for all these sorts of lists, but if they stick to people who are notable for their religion as well as sport, or at least those who have mentioned their religion, I don't see the harm. JPD (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep Actually, we do have List of Jewish American athletes. I'll made the redirect from the link you suggested above. --Bachrach44 15:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• comment this was probably an outgrowth of List of Muslims, which has since been divided into sub-lists because it was becoming excessively large. We also have List of Hindus, List of Canadians, etc., alsmost all of which have a subsection which includes athletes. --Bachrach44 15:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lol, what the hell does the religion have to do with athletes? Delete Islamic athletics too.  Grue  16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The list is a part of a larger List of Muslims. --JuanMuslim ^1m 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this survived AfD already and nothing really new has been brought up. Bachrach44 has a great point and I think it should be kept anyway. Grandmasterka 16:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, that vote was a unanimous delete. Was the article recreated? JPD (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks that way, in which case I believe it is eligible for speedy delete. But personally I'm going to vote to keep as long as the list is limited to prominent athletes. — RJH 17:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: It's not eligible for speedy deletion. The article has been deleted five times, but the version of the article deleted by the previous AFD was a bare empty list. It's since been speedied twice under CSD:G4, but I don't think it's valid for speedy deletion in the current form as it's not speediable under any other criterion now, and it's not the same as the article that was deleted before. Sorry if that doesn't make sense, it's a little late. Stifle 01:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Grue. get rid of these worthless lists MadCow257 16:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not an expert on list-cruft but I can image information for a topic like this that could not be conveyed in a category. Example, if tehre are a lot of sports that you want to separate out. You could make 50 subcategories with very few members but that would not be very user-friendly. Just a thought. Lists do have some usefulness to wikipedia. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Grue. Such lists are meaningless. What if someone is born Christian and turns Muslim later on? These lists also contribute to "ethnic comparisons" and other controversial and destructive ideas. Slowmover 20:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If the person says s/he is a Muslim, then s/he is a Muslim. If s/he is also an athlete, then s/he is a Muslim athlete. --JuanMuslim ^1m 23:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. An intersection of two random unrelated categories, in addition one of which is poorly specified and largely unverifiable. All the sensibility of List of comedic actors who prefer cats over dogs as pets. Are these people Muslims because they really are or because they live in countries where they are likely to be beheaded for not acting like one? A list lacking informational content of any kind, and more likely to mislead than to educate. Weregerbil 20:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please WP:CIVIL. Comments on "countries where they are likely to be beheaded" and attire while basket weaving are superfluous. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 22:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If attire while basket weaving is not an allowed area of discussion may we discuss the attire of persons engaged in sports? Please see Islamic athletics which happens to discuss the effect of burqas and other clothing in sporting events. Weregerbil 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Your points are well taken, but I'd just appreciate if you'd tone down the rhetoric a notch. Depicting Muhammad in a basket is probably much. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Depicting Mohamed in the weave of a basket is an example of what Islam forbids (according to some scholars, not all). Depicting Mohamed in a basket is idolatry, i.e. an "ansab" (what, no article on that?! Probably under some other name I can't find at the moment.) Islamic athletics discusses other similar Islamic principles such as hijab and awrah. Is using ansab as an example less civil than mentioning hijab and awrah? In an AfD is a discussion please let's find a balance between WP:CIVIL and tip-toeing around delicate word play that restricts genuine exchange of opinion. Or, in other words, try to focus on the issues rather than work hard to take comments the worst possible way and to get offended. You are rather quick to cite others of incivility when it is somewhat possible you don't understand the point they are making (which, again, is entirely possibly in a large part due to me not being a native speaker of English! Also comments in an AfD are written in an unusually curt form due to the need to get the point across quickly; this requires even further positive attitude (assume good faith) from the reader. Again my apologies if I was too brief in my rationale earlier. This comment surely has no such problem :-) Weregerbil 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't want to detract from the AfD, so I've responded on your talk page. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 02:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. By your standards, anything that is not a list of Muslim scholars and/or historical figures should be deleted. --JuanMuslim ^1m 22:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • An important reason to delete all lists of this type is that there is no "authority" who can decide who is Muslim and who is not (or Christian, or Jewish, or people who love cats). Therefore, the compilation of the list is POV, which does not belong on Wikipedia. People who want these lists should set up a website for them. Can you specify an authority which can be used to verify the inclusion of each name on such a list? Slowmover 22:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the purpose of the talk page of each article. An individual can easily be deleted off the list. --JuanMuslim ^1m 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

So... umm... Do you mean anyone can be added to the list but to deleting a name from the list can be done only after proof on the talk page? I hope I understand you incorrectly. Zero proof to add to the list, 100% water tight proof to delete? I do trust this is a miscommunication and I interpret you incorrectly. Adding any Joe Q. Smith on the list and then requiring others to prove beyond a shadow of doubt he is not a practicing devout Muslim surely should not be the criteria for inclusion? Weregerbil 00:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a misunderstanding. --JuanMuslim ^1m 13:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as useful list. Capitalistroadster 01:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as an extension of List of Muslims and as a useful list. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 02:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bachrach44. The existence of the Jewish list removes half of the nom's argument. If all such lists should be removed, that's a policy argument to raise elsewhere, not a job for AfD. Turnstep 02:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as useful and interesting list M2k41 02:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's useful and can be improved a lot too. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep NB: Jewish can be ethnic and/or religious identification; Muslim is solely religious, so get ready for List of Christian athletes, List of Hindu athletes, List of Scientologist athletes, List of athiest athletes, List of Baptist athletes, List of Sunni Muslim athletes, List of 2-day-a-year Christian athletes, List of athletes who tithe, List of excommunicated athletes, List of athletes who have converted...not that any of these lists is a bad thing, but just don't expect to have sympathy if you want to delete them later. Carlossuarez46 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 22:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Grue. Evan1975 07:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - As long as many muslim athletes are keen to relate their profession w/ their confession. How many of these people pray before competing? How many thank God/Allah after winning? How many refuse to sing national anthems before starting? How many of them carry religious messages when playing (Abou Treka -the Egyptian footbal midfielder carried a message defending the prophet Muhammad recently at the African Cup final)... -- Szvest 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
• Keep As listcruft goes, this is a lot more useful than say, List of United States Presidents by height order. David Sneek 19:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Unmaintainable, unverifiable (was every athlete on here interviewed on their religious preference? Or are all of these athletes being lumped together because they come from Muslim countries?), also agree with comments by User:Carlossuarez46-- Oscar Arias 17:37, 13 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campbeltown railway station

Fantasy. There is no Oban-Campbeltown railway line. No proposal has ever been made for this station and it is unlikely that it ever will be. -- RHaworth 12:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as fantasy hoax. --Terence Ong 13:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, hoax. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence is provided for the claimed railway line, and such an improbable proposal needs verifiable sources. Sliggy 19:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 03:07Z

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

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

The result of the debate was "Speedy Delete' by User:Marudubshinki — Adrian Lamo ·· 01:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Broadway

Delete uncertain of notability, very few relevant Ghits--Porturology 12:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 13:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Eivind 22:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I've tagged it for speedy -- I think it just escaped previous speedying because it was pretty long. Long non-notable articles are still non-notable, and bands promoting on Myspace/LJ are so very rarely notable. — Adrian Lamo ·· 00:31, 8 March 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Orchestra - Ostfront 41-45 FAQ

Looks like marketing, mostly copied from http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/showthread.php?t=795. Lapinmies 12:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs". See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Blue520 14:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Blue520. GRuban 15:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Blue. Eivind 22:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. BrendanH 16:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for the reasons stated above. - XX55XX 23:38, 10 March 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 - there seems to be a clear consensus that the current article is no good, so I'm going to delete it and move Lost At Sea to Lost at Sea as suggested. Flowerparty■ 22:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost at Sea

A search of amazon.com doesn't report a book by this title and author. Ben Aveling 12:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Also zero Google hits. Delete.Vizjim 13:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A related page Tropical Storm Lance was created by the same user, and may have been speedied once before? See User_talk:Axiomm. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Can't find on Amazon or Google. Related article Tropical Storm Lance by same contributor AfD'd below. Weregerbil 13:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per PJM. Weregerbil 13:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There is such a book on Amazon: [18] (different author) and another right here on the Wiki: Lost At Sea. I find nothing on the storm "Lance", however. PJM 13:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lost At Sea, for now. PJM 13:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• We need an article on the process whereby a ship sinks; sinking (which is also apparently a Chinese city), sunk, etc common causes, famous sinkings, etc. — Dunc|☺ 13:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Shipwreck! Did you just volunteer to do some redirects/disambiguation from sink, sinking etc :-) Weregerbil 13:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Sunken ship is my fave, incidentally. PJM 14:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lost At Sea. --Terence Ong 14:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lost At Sea. Also redirect Lost At Sea., which copies the same content has the AfD page. - Rynne 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOS, Lost at Sea should be the article title and Lost At Sea should be the redirect (the lowercase at is correct). --keepsleeping slack off! 19:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete Lost at Sea (the stupid hoax) then Move Lost At Sea the graphic novell to Lost at Sea per MoS. Axiomm (talk • contribs) has tried to recreate other pages of his that were deleted, maybe this will help avoid that. Thatcher131 13:02, 9 March 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, acknowledging the well-mannered socks. Flowerparty■ 22:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Music

I don't think I've ever seen quote so many redlinks in a single article before! CReated in support of Complaints Department (tagged for speedy but I userfied it to the creator's user space, User:Jamswede. Article appears to me to be vanispamcruftisement Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete This is an actual record label that actually exists in the actual world, and as such should be documented in this worthwhile and weighty e-tome. You'll be sorry when Wrong takes over BMG -- Ian W. Stock
• Delete as vanispamcruftisment. --Terence Ong 13:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: vanispamcruftisment --BigglesTheGreat 13:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VSCA. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's curious that there are some items in it that aren't linked. I wonder if there's ever been an article in which every word (either the word or as part of a phrase) was redlinked? It's tempting to add them. Шизомби 22:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 03:07Z
• Do Not Delete have cleared up the links -- Hooray23
• Do Not Delete have cleared up the links -- menik 81
• Do Not Delete Why on earth would you delete a whole article because it's been linked badly? I agree the article has been badly written to wikipedia standards, but a heap of facts and information has been delivered. It should be improved by someone more experienced in wikipedia editing, not deleted. Isn't that what wikipedia is about?-- abscond
• Do Not Delete Article isn't violating any of Wikipedias rules, DJ The Blade will cry if you delete this article.

• Neutral This record label might be notable considering Shitmat's involvement but this looks like copyvio from [19] to me. As it stands delete unless it sees much improvement. kotepho 14:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete reasons to keep - find criteria for performers outside of mass media traditions, wrong music fits all of these and is vital to art and music cultures/subcultures everywhere. keep it wrong - xze!
• Do Not Delete by order of her royal highness, this is history in the making - the queen

why delete its only information about somethig . joey

• Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle 01:19, 11 March 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 with Celebrity chef. Angr/talk 23:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super chef

Article is primarily an advertisement for the book Super Chef. Also, the term "super chef" as defined here is something of a neologism and hasn't caught on beyond Rossant's book; the phrase is generic and is usually used as a synonym for celebrity chef. Klaw ¡digame! 03:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with celebrity chef perhaps?
• Delete this page serves no purpose. Maybe we do need a neologism to label this exact sub-sub-species of people but I doubt it and certainly not in this book-pushing form. Celebrity chef is fine for now, at most merge to that and label as a little used / suggested neologism. Deiz 19:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to celebrity chef. Might be worth a brief mention in that article, but otherwise is a neologism, apparently unused by anyone other than Rossant (who isn't even notable enough to have an article herself). Powers 21:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Leave as a separate page. I am the author of this page (and I am not Juliette Rossant!).

Were any of you to read this entire "super chef" before continuing your deletion process, you will see that a "super chef" is clearly a new (though growing) phenomenon among chefs -- and clearly does not include many celebrity and other chefs. In fact, the article spends its last quarter separating out celebrity and other chefs who might be confused with super chefs: Julia Child, James Beard, Jacques Pepin, Sara Moulton, Anthony Bourdain, Alton Brown, and Rocco DiSpirito; Paul Prudhomme, Alice Waters, Martin Yan, Michael Chiarello, and Masaharu Morimoto; Rachael Ray, Paula Deen, and Jeffrey Smith (AKA The Frugal Gourmet).

If you wish to make changes, e.g., you don't like the book reference (strange for people who are trying to creating a reference encyclopedia), then please suggest or simply make changes, but at least have the courtesy of reading more carefully.

Also, the "sub-sub-category" and little used "neo-logism" arguments are not very strong, either: isn't Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia trying to get ahead of the institutional speed of something like Brittanica?

Lastly, if you want an article about Juliette Rossant in order to validate your point, I am writing one today.

That said, I confess that Wikipedia still confuses me with its own institutional, lengthy instructions. I am trying to categorized this page (preferably under Food, Hospitality, Business, News, Media, Celebrity and/or possibly other categories, if I can just find them and figure out how to incorporate them...)

Also, I am unclear about hyperlinks: does Wikipedia prefer hyperlinks referring to its own pages or outside pages? Frankly, I am for both and don't mind adding both. Thus, " Juliette Rossant q.v. "

Please email me directly with replies before taking any further action, as this will also help me understand Wikipedia's direction and how worthwhile it is for me to contributing with further new additions and edits: aboudaqn [ at ] gmail [dot] com.

Thank you.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aboudaqn (talk • contribs) .

Speaking for myself, I did indeed read the article. I'm well aware of the distinction Rossant is making. However, we can't have an article on every new word someone comes up with. We need some evidence of its currency and usage beyond the confines of this one book. We're not in a competition with Britannica (or any other encyclopedia) to see who can incorporate neologisms first. Right now, if this term belongs anywhere, it's in a section of the celebrity chef (or possibly chef) article, because it's not well-known or widely-used enough to have its own article. Someday it might be, but today, based on available evidence, it isn't. Also, please understand that this isn't anything personal; it's about making the best encyclopedia we can. Powers 01:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to that little tirade is here. Deizio 01:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with celebrity chef. --Terence Ong 13:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to celebrity chef. Now an ad for a book that tries to define a fairly common phrase in a certain way; no evidence this particular definition is notable, much less the definition. Apart from book ad contains lists of chef names already covered in celebrity chef. Weregerbil 13:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to celebrity chef. - Rynne 18:21, 7 March 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 no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 22:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avraham Shmulevich

Delete. I looked though his website and his livejournal (I am a Russian-speaker) and I came to the conclusion that this "rabbi" of unknown religious provenance is the leader of a non-notable gang of a small number "hyperzionist" hoodlums. Especially the moronic posters that his half-dozen protestors display at his "actions" leads me to believe that this is NN. Crzrussian 13:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Note that the website does have an English language section, so don't be afraid to visit. Not notable. Never in Knesset [20] and from the looks of the platform (something about the natural borders of Israel encompassing most of Syria and half of Iraq?) never will be. GRuban 15:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC) See below.
• Weak delete - he is very active in Russian-language blogs and once got a moment of fame when Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (apparently a secretary was reading blogs) made a point comparing Shnuleviches hyper-zionists with Hamas (conveniently forgetting that Hamas members are in hundred of thousands and Shmuleviches a less than 10 people. Still as a politician he is a zero and as a writer he is not-notable. abakharev 16:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Strongly censure article nom for violating WP:NPA, both here and in the PROD (which I removed on the grounds of WP:RPA.) Clean up your act; you make the deletion process look bad. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

* Comment With all due respect, WP:NPA says "against another contributor" all over it. Avraham Shmulevich is not a contributor, but the subject of the article. So while article nom may be expressing his feelings rather strongly, I do not believe he is violating WP:NPA. GRuban 14:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Response: I did not attack the post, or the poster. I did not even attack Shmulevich himself. I called his followers "hoodlums", and their posters "moronic", not because I agree or disagree with their political position, but because I viewed the contents of the website and the pictures of their "actions". The degree of stupidity contained therein is directly relevant to B.A.'s notability as a political movement: the lamer, the less legitimate, the more deletable. As for expressing my feelings strongly, I am proud to have done so. I did nothing wrong. Crzrussian 15:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The fact that somebody is considered a "hoodlum" is not a reason for not having an entry. Nor is there a rule on the number of followers required for someone to be "notable," so far as I know (and quite how many followers he has is open to dispute). Shmulevich is intresting for two reasons (which is why I postd the entry in the first place, hoping that someone would expand it). Firstly, he is an associate of Alexander Dugin and a founding member of Dugin's Eurasia Movement. He is therefore relevant to the understanding of Dugin and his movement, which is why I put a page on him in my book *Against the Modern World* (Oxford UP, 2004). Secondly, he is an example of "Hyperzionism," a movement that does exist, even if it is pretty small. His public advocacy of a "Nile to Euphrates" State is in itself notable. The Israeli newspaper *Ediot Ahronot* thought him notable enoug to merit an articl (Natasha Mozgovaya, “The Red Army of the Hebron Rabbi,” July 18 2003). Frankly, I suspect that the main argument for deletion is simply that many people don't like the guy--which I understand, but I just don't think that should be a criterion.mjsedgwick 18:40, 8 March 2006 (GMT+2)

Comment I think the author himself unintentionally makes the point for deletion. This is not about ideology (I am unfamiliar with A.S.'s ideology other than the ludicrous borders thing). This is about being marginal. A marginal crackpot with ludicrous views and few or no followers may be very entertaining, but is not a proper material for inclusion in wikipedia. (Incidentally, the author and I are having an interesting conversation about all these characters off wikipedia. There's no personal animus here). Crzrussian 17:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Response: True about the side discussion. Problem is that I'm going to have to abandon debate soon as it's late in my time zone and there are children to be put to bed! I'm probaly violating some policy by going off topic like this, but I'm rather struck by the fact that the result of my adding a stub for someone I thought interesting is that I end up wiriting more on this page than on the original entry. Lesson for future: don't post a stub, post a full article. Anyhow, back on topic: at least Crzrussian admits to "interesting" and "marginal"! How "marginal" is "marginal"? OK, no-one's about to put the guy on banknote, or elect him to the Knesset, but surely you don't have to be THAT notable for a Wikipedia entry. I'll repeat here my original logic. Alexander Dugin is certainly notable. Subject of dispute contributes to understanding of larger subject. Also relevant to second larger subject of HyperZionism/Neo-Zionism.mjsedgwick 19:20, 8 March 2006 (GMT+2)

Comment Until now this has been civil and divorced from ideology. A few minutes ago I removed the following passage from the article: Th[e] control [from the Nile to the Euphrates] need not be military: the techniques of economic and social control suggested in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion would do equally well. OMG! The reference to the Protocols, a pathetic antisemitic hoax, which makes my blood boil, instantly casts doubt on the entire article and the intention of the writer! Is this article meant to castigate its subject? I am profoundly unhappy. Crzrussian 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC) I am having trouble being cool as a cucumber. Crzrussian 19:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Response Well, that's what comes of saying we're having an amicable and interesting discussion! A sentence "instantly casts doubt on the entire article and the intention of the writer!" Since I'm the writer, I think that means doubt is being cast on my intentions? Does that mean that it's OK for me to consider the intentions of Crzrussian? "I am profoundly unhappy" describes a state of mind, which might be relevant to intention. "A pathetic antisemitic hoax, which makes my blood boil"--well, let's see. Hoax, yes. Antisemitic, yes. Pathetic? Well, I wish! One of the most successful hoaxes in history, I'd say. Just look at the number of editions and translations... But anyhow, whether or not that particular hoax makes one's blood boil is not the point. The question is whether or not the subject of the article did make that rather extraordinary assertion [and he did]. One might then speculate as to why. Well, put it together with the "Nile to Euphrates" definition, and a possibility starts to become clear. That definition too is a hoax, and a very successful one. The majority of Arabs are convinced that the State of Israel has designs on Egypt and Iraq, even though this is not the case. What Shmulevich is doing, I think, is being as provocative as possible by taking the two greatest antisemitic/anti-Israeli hoax ideas around, and endorsing them. And it seems to work, no? Anyhow, the reason I'm replying at such length is partly to defend myself against the charge that seems to have been brought against me, and partly because I think this exchange illustrates my earlier thesis that the real objection to an entry on Shmulevich is not that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information but that people don't like the guy. To which I would reply: Wikipedia is not censored. Despite which, I am accepting censorship on this occasion, and have not reversed the deletion. mjsedgwick 13:49, 11 March 2006 (GMT+2)

I give up Keep the article if you want to. I am removing myself from this debate, but remain convinced that Professor Sedgwick invidiously compared Shmulevich's actions with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was quite anti-semitic and unprofessorly of him. See ya. Crzrussian 02:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see! Crzrussian thought that it was me who had made the comparison with the Protocols. I can see now why he got upset. If the original (now deleted) sentence is read more carefully and in context (and in cold blood), I trust it will be clear that I did not make this comparison at all (it would never occurr to me to make such a comparison, which is why I didn't realize what Crzrussian was getting at). I was reporting what Shmulevich said (or wrote, actually). It is Shmulevich who provocatively refers to the Protocols, partly as a way of gaining people' attention and making them react--which certainly seems to have happened on this occasion! mjsedgwick 19:45, 12 March 2006 (GMT+2)

• Final plea for keeping. I've taken my own advice and expanded the stub. Take a look now and see whether the guy is worthy of an entry or not. mjsedgwick 19:55, 8 March 2006 (GMT+2)
  • It's a good article now, but can we have a reference besides his own website, and his own posts on blogs? Otherwise, we've got a nasty precedent that everyone who spends a few days on the net... Hmmm. I did a bit of searching, and found this [21] which claims that there are two movies and a chapter in a book that are dedicated to the movement. That's something. Keep. Side note, the author of the book is ... right. OK, then. Hi. GRuban 18:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC) I added the references to the article itself. GRuban 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment all materials were either produced by members, or are of a curiosity value, not a question of scholarship. If I come out and yell something vile and racist in Times Square with 10 of my buddies, I might make the news too, but that does not make me notable.Crzrussian 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Response If Crzrussian and 10 of his buddies goes out in Times Square and yells something vile and racist, and if he and his buddies are the local expression of a movement that is of growing significance in another country, then yes, I think he and his buddies would be in some sense notable. For the record, I would like to stress that I personally do no suppot the goals, methods, or logic of Neo-Eurasianism. I am simply a researcher trying to make the results of my research available to the public, and adopting the famous neutral point of view. mjsedgwick 13:59, 11 March 2006 (GMT+2)

• Weak keep - changed my mind from weak delete to weak keep. The article evolutioned into a balanced one, worth to keep abakharev 23:14, 9 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  16:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Storm Lance

Hoax. Can't find the book Lost at Sea by that author on Amazon or Google; can't find this storm on google. Book AfD'd earlier, wording in WP:AFD doesn't suggest I can bundle more stuff to existing AfD and says "if unsure don't bundle". Weregerbil 13:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hoax, delete. Peculiarly unfunny and pointless one, too.Vizjim 13:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crzrussian 13:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT. See here: [22]. PJM 13:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Terence Ong 14:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• keeepAxiomm 17:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Axiomm is the author of this article, as well as related articles Lost at Sea and Lost At Sea.. - Rynne 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And does not seem interested in explaining why it should be kept - no apparent interest in Wiki policy either: User talk:Axiomm. PJM 18:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - Rynne 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per above. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 23:57, 7 March 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.  (aeropagitica)  16:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouthLINE

Delete: Program no longer exists and was not notable in first place. BigglesTheGreat 13:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:NFT. Stifle 01:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Melchoir 05:55, 11 March 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. There's no content to merge, and no one will look for this title, so redirect is unnecessary. Angr/talk 22:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dance Dance Revolution games by date

Okay, taking this straight to AFD, as I know this is going to be controversial. Listcruft. There's already a seperate List of Dance Dance Revolution games; is there a reason to reorder and duplicate the list? み使い Mitsukai 14:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Dance Dance Revolution games at least, altho that one isn't much of an article either. This seems like excessive detail to me. Ned Wilbury 14:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Article contains no new content from List of Dance Dance Revolution games, just a different ordering scene. - Rynne 18:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unlikely search term. Limited utility gain for those who want to read the list sorted by date instead of some other sorting method but I can only image a deluge of repetitive content if we keep things like this. One day, and we are talking long term here, wikipedia may have the software capabilities to re-sort lists by different criteria but until then I don't think we need to be creating duplicate lists. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Savidan. Eivind 22:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. Very unlikely search term. Stifle 01:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)