Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 6 March 8 >

Purge server cache

March 7[edit]

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)[reply]

Jim Zulevic[edit]

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

  • 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)[reply]
    • Searching with quotes around the name comes up with 227. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Second City troupe member with verifiable movie credits. Where's the issue? Monicasdude 00:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His IMBD entry indicates sufficient notability. dbtfztalk 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A couple is enough, check IMDB next time. Mike (T C) 01:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • Thanks, Mike, I appreciate your comments. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The IMDB entry appears to have been substantially expanded in the last few days. Monicasdude 17:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has enough of a presence in the media to support an article. --CTSWyneken 02:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough Celcius 02:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agreed. Notable enough. --AaronS 03:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this person is notable erasing would not make sense Yuckfoo 03:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 ∙ TC 05:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going to try to make some improvements to the article. dbtfztalk 06:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jimboy0 06:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMDB entry shows a reasonably notable record. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep for obvious reasons, already stated. --Rob 08:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 10:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep notable (WP threshold is low, and I think he meets it) Slowmover 19:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable enough —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Staxringold (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Per IMDB AdamJacobMuller 03:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 16:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TeenSpeak Online[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How many websites are listed on Google News? --Rory096 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website--TBC??? ??? ??? 01:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, possible adv Celcius 02:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like spam. --AaronS 03:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable website. --Mysidia (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Terence Ong 10:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, have heard of this website many times from teenagers. --Biggles 14:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 15:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Biggles. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Probable advertisement. Slowmover 19:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • There are thousands of news sites quoted by Google News. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WEB, advertisement, all of the above. Staxringold 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm AdamJacobMuller 03:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB --Jaranda wat's sup 03:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 16:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Genesis Evangelion: R[edit]

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4 per nom. --AaronS 03:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete, agree it probably doesn't meet CSD G4, but I think it's not notable even with the larger article -- Samir ∙ TC 06:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 10:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft, simple as that. Staxringold 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Fan fiction is not notable. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft AdamJacobMuller 03:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Deleted by User:Rmhermen. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex mixon[edit]

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

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 16:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chokkan Do[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge with Doom II. Flowerparty■ 16:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MAP31: Wolfenstein[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 16:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pang (color)[edit]

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)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qksearch[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. Stifle 09:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Relisting for more useful discussion. Note how this is possible without the use of garish red ink? -Splashtalk 01:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment: If this article is deleted, QKSearch should also be deleted. Fetofs Hello! 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:WEB. --AaronS 03:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Comment. Oh, and his edit to hex editor was just adding a link to HexIt. --Rory096 00:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
QKSearch as written was blatant spam, I have now made it a redirect. Just zis Guy you know? 13:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both this article and QKSearch. Just not notable enough yet. -- Andy Saunders 20:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. FCYTravis 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Rory096 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam for a non-notable search engine.
  • Delete spam --MaNeMeBasat 07:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fredd (comics)[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uzumaki Carly[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Military reserves — the articles are nearly identical. I'll TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary, too. -Splashtalk 23:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass of maneuver[edit]

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

  • Comment Move it to Wikitionary? Celcius 02:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per the above. Royboycrashfan 02:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki this dicdef. Draeco 04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, I've marked the article as a candidate for transwiki. Pagrashtak 06:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per Mysidia. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Merge if possible, per above. --AaronS 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and if that's not possible, Transwiki. Staxringold 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into "military reserves", which I believe is a superset of this term. — RJH 16:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shabash[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Delete as nn company. dbtfztalk 01:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable company --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP and WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 02:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --AaronS 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, though not the usual straight advertising. Staxringold 22:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Digital-drafts, Inc.[edit]

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

  • Comment page has already been deleted --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G4 & above comment. Mike (T C) 01:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Advert, vanity Celcius 02:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G4 per the above and A7 per WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 02:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Kept and moved to Lobster Newberg.  (aeropagitica)  22:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster neuberg[edit]

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

  • Merge per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. dbtfztalk 04:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Keep and move as per Pagashtrak. Capitalistroadster 07:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pagrashtak. --AaronS 22:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the spelling correcting move, and list for expansion if you think it needs it. Staxringold 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Lobster Newberg. Jude(talk,contribs) 08:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per above. youngamerican (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merged with Swimming pool.  (aeropagitica)  22:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wading pool[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  22:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda (spa)[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Perhaps it could be moved to WikiTravel? Hynca-Hooley 12:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte, ad. --Terence Ong 13:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, not the same as other spas. Kappa 12:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts | (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Royboycrashfan 02:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. Cleanup. utcursch | talk 09:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, per above. I'll see what I can do to help. --AaronS 22:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though remove any copy vio and make it NPOV, not an ad. Staxringold 23:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. Arbusto 09:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very interesting and noteworthy. - XX55XX 23:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. Shanel 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calientemix[edit]

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey O'Brien[edit]

  • delete not notable enough a person; self-promotion Mayumashu 02:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Asserts some notability, but doesn't meet WP:BIO. Royboycrashfan 02:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Company manages $250 mil., which is not much. The company is probably notable enough, but not the CEO. dbtfztalk 03:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, looks quite notable, but doesn't meet WP:BIO. --Terence Ong 12:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what? Help us out here. dbtfztalk 23:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, reads like vanity or self-promotion. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. If the company grows larger or he does something.. Maybe then. Staxringold 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems to have some notability. Arbusto 09:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Seems like promotion. —GrantNeufeld 03:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Licorice Voltmeter[edit]

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. -Splashtalk 02:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Securitysafeguards.net[edit]

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)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous Living[edit]

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)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Flowerparty■ 22:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ansatsuken[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom joshbuddytalk 04:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per Mitsukai. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOR.--Isotope23 17:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOR. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if this is real, but if it remains unref'ed, delete it. Staxringold 23:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. --ZeroTalk 12:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Oh I've done all that. Please see the article's talkpage. -ZeroTalk
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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. -ZeroTalk 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As such I think its time to withdraw this afd nomination. -ZeroTalk 19:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Flowerparty■ 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zbattle.net[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 04:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into ZSNES. Ashibaka tock 05:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 12:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Square Group[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Plummer[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Speedy A8 per the above. Royboycrashfan 04:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I agree this is a speedy delete'r. Staxringold 23:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A8, nn and blatant copy/vio.--Dakota ~ ° 08:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tard Blog[edit]

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. joshbuddytalk 04:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Royboycrashfan 04:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. dbtfztalk 04:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable evidence provided of significance. Capitalistroadster 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete, fewer Google results than my site and no media mentions that I can find. -- Kjkolb 11:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unveifiable. --Terence Ong 12:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:Dbtfz. --Biggles 14:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Putting 3 unencyclopedic things together doesn't result in an encyclopedic thing. Ned Wilbury 14:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is real, as I've read the blogs, but I doubt it's notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 15:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable blog.--Isotope23 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very non-notable. Staxringold 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Frank Drew[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. The subject of the article has an admirable military record, but does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. dbtfztalk 04:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 05:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep if verified, general officers and flag officers are usually notable. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if verified, per Adrian. Highly positioned generals are notable, IMO. Staxringold 23:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Latsaoc[edit]

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)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Namuh[edit]

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)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as article with no assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 07:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Trista-Durden[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Done. I vote delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 05:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I applaud her desire to become a speech-language pathologist. -- Samir ∙ TC 05:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty■ 00:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revaz Dogonadze[edit]

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

  • Keep, sufficiently notable. Royboycrashfan 05:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Very well, I challenge you to defend "Quantum Biophysics" a legitmate field of science. Folajimi 05:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 ∙ TC 05:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. Staxringold 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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

Do-over time[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endway[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Volkenshtein[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee/jeffries[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KOTRT[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Royboycrashfan 06:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable and WP:NOT a respository for howtos. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no merge unless there's verifiable info. Ned Wilbury 14:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT.--Isotope23 17:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peasant Revolt (band)[edit]

  • Delete no proof of notability Wickethewok 05:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity as is. Royboycrashfan 06:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably a valid speedy. Ned Wilbury 14:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they have a website, but the forum only has 1 post MadCow257 16:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Unless they sell enough casettes to meet the criteria. Bad ideas 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 23:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Rosselló[edit]

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

  • Delete, no real assertion of notability. Royboycrashfan 06:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Appears to have been created by subject of the article. Sarge Baldy 07:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No relevant google hits with and without accent marks MadCow257 16:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doogate[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboradate[edit]

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

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. dbtfztalk 06:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Stark[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Speedy A7, does not assert notability. Royboycrashfan 06:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7 per nomination. Have tagged as such. -- Saberwyn 06:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Please, alot of Wikipedia unworthy people are on IMDb. Royboycrashfan 07:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Don't worry. I spread my complaining all around. ;-) Kjkolb 04:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 11:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable artist, not speedy-able. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • "Stark appeared in several films from European studio Private." Stifle 02:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay Jcuk 22:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacAMD[edit]

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

  • Delete open and closed case of crystal ball.Wickethewok 06:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Royboycrashfan 06:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Speculative, unverifiable. --Mysidia (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty■ 22:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Sanchez[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Keep, important character on the show. Royboycrashfan 06:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Ned Wilbury 14:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You think so? Then let's nominate Sandy Cheeks for deletion, too.

Royboycrashfan 22:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Merge as above. I'm in complete agreement with J.Smith's comment, as well. Microtonal 20:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per J.Smith. JoshuaZ 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. How can a TV show on a major TV network be borderline notable? --Rory096 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this isn't about the TV show. This is about a character on it. ---J.Smith 00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But the nomination's reason was that the TV show wasn't notable. --Rory096 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment. Which policy is that? --Rory096 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCW WRESTLING[edit]

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

  • Delete per WP:NFT and WP:HOAX. Royboycrashfan 06:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not quite {{db-club}}, but should still go -- speedily. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete - as per J.Smith's vote Cje 08:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panoptic Enterprises[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was 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. -Splashtalk 23:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional metal[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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|talkFile:Hot chilli.jpg 13:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Commment. An article for hard rock already exists. Isopropyl 20:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And that article seems sufficient - although I've never considered Queen to be amongst that group.-- ZincOrbie 21:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Traditional Delete (or is that Classic Delete?) per ZincOrbie.--み使い Mitsukai 05:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 06:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stiob salat[edit]

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

  • Delete definition only. nn. Wickethewok 06:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef, unverifiable. --Kinu t/c 07:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unverifiable definition; neologism? A great candidate for {{prod}}. AppleMacD 07:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's nothing but a dicdef, shall be nowhere on Wiki. Royboycrashfan 07:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This HAS to be BJAODN! It's gold! -- Samir ∙ TC 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary i.e. dicdef. --Terence Ong 11:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • BJAODN this. It broke my brain, so it should be worth the trip there.--み使い Mitsukai 14:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN I agree with Samir. It's unique. Fan1967 15:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN'd it. Hynca-Hooley 15:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:Marudubshinki — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mismanagement[edit]

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

  • Speedy delete - A6 - attack. AppleMacD 07:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A6 per all above. Royboycrashfan 07:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 {{t1|db-attack}} . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 17:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First supercentenarians[edit]

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 {yakłtalk} 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 07:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep many of the people listed have articles about them -- Astrokey44|talk 12:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete. per Sliggy. --Snargle 21:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty■ 00:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

40 Glocc[edit]

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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 07:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, stub with potential. Royboycrashfan 07:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, on second thoughts, until I see evidence that it passes WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 20:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, needs to be expanded. Inventm 02:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary antecedent[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Delete, sadly, it's an interesting article but it does appear to original thinking. Kappa 12:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 07:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 07:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Rynne 18:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting, but almost certainly original reseach. Wikipedia's not the venue for this. dbtfztalk 20:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  21:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Félix Malpica Valverde[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Keep - can't see any reason to delete. Stifle 01:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts | (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity and listcruft at its best. Royboycrashfan 07:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mike. Eivind 11:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sounds good and notable. Roy's too rough. Crzrussian 13:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge.  (aeropagitica)  20:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macky auditorium[edit]

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

Merge into University of Colorado at Boulder Jedi6 22:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, or merge per Jedi6. Stifle 01:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Purge. Sub-article overkill. Metta Bubble 05:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, home of a symphony orchestra, do not merge. Kappa 11:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 07:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  20:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Nalle[edit]

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)[reply]

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.
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)[reply]

BesMella[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  20:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

freeones[edit]

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

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete because it is a link farm, porn being irrelevant. -- Kjkolb 10:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Alexa Computerjoe 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alexa ranking alone =! notability. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. dbtfztalk 04:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Genb2004 22:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 00:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laxius_Power_I[edit]

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)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 00:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laxius Power II[edit]

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)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 00:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laxius Power III[edit]

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)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  20:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katies-World[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MadCow257 16:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nathcer 22:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (and Alexa rank in particular) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 00:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laxius Power[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • Delete. RPG Maker is just barely notable; its scenarios and users aren't. —Cryptic (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cryptic. - Rynne 18:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with RPG Maker. Eivind 22:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is already a section on Laxius Power in RPG Maker. A big one, at that.Mackan 13:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mackan --MaNeMeBasat 07:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with all of its friends kotepho 14:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  20:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPod True Video[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 11:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reason. --BigglesTheGreat 14:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ---Bachrach44 15:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete into article on 5th gen iPod, reword to indicate rumor status. KirbyMeister 22:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Crystalballism, rumor filled article. --lightdarkness (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. 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. -Splashtalk 23:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter_Fletcher[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Part of one user's walled garden on antivaccination activism. JFW | T@lk 12:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • What on earth does Asimov have to do with this, apart from the science fiction? JFW | T@lk 05:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's very ... wrong. Midgley 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 13:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Ombudsman has edited my comment here[15] on this page. This is improper. Midgley 19:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • Delete according to WP:BIO. If kept, should be rewritten according to NPOV. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Barno. AED 07:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
He is not a professor, but that may have been my fault - a momentary confusion. Midgley 02:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  20:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIC Movie[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete nn film. --Terence Ong 13:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No IMDB entry, nn-film. --lightdarkness (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of Muslim athletes[edit]

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? Werdna648T/C\@ 11:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also a repost. Werdna648T/C\@ 11:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a List of Jewish American athletes. --JuanMuslim 1m 22:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Keep Since there is no such thing as jewish or christian atheletics, but there is Islamic athletics. --Striver 11:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep - it's fine. some people like that sorta thing. Crzrussian 13:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Striver. --Terence Ong 13:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unuseful and unmaintainable. aren't there categories for this? Ned Wilbury 15:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have an issue with lists on Wikipedia in general. --JuanMuslim 1m 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete lol, what the hell does the religion have to do with athletes? Delete Islamic athletics too.  Grue  16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list is a part of a larger List of Muslims. --JuanMuslim 1m 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Actually, that vote was a unanimous delete. Was the article recreated? JPD (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per Grue. get rid of these worthless lists MadCow257 16:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Please WP:CIVIL. Comments on "countries where they are likely to be beheaded" and attire while basket weaving are superfluous. -- Samir ∙ TC 22:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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 ∙ TC 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • I don't want to detract from the AfD, so I've responded on your talk page. -- Samir ∙ TC 02:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, a misunderstanding. --JuanMuslim 1m 13:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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&#153;[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campbeltown railway station[edit]

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)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was "Speedy Delete' by User:Marudubshinki — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Broadway[edit]

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Orchestra - Ostfront 41-45 FAQ[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - 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)[reply]

Lost at Sea[edit]

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lost At Sea, for now. PJM 13:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, acknowledging the well-mannered socks. Flowerparty■ 22:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Music[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete: vanispamcruftisment --BigglesTheGreat 13:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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

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)[reply]

Super chef[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 13:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Merge to celebrity chef. - Rynne 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 22:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham Shmulevich[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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.[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
* 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  16:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Lance[edit]

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)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  16:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouthLINE[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. 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)[reply]

List of Dance Dance Revolution games by date[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per Savidan. Eivind 22:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. Very unlikely search term. Stifle 01:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. For one thing, we can't delete an article and move its content into other articles, that violates the GFDL. There are no other votes to delete besides the nominator, and it's been up since Tuesday. Stifle 01:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of web browsers[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article reads like a FAQ or a product review, not an encyclopedia. Most of the text of the page is in the form of large tables rather than an encyclopedic article; what little accurate text there is often wanders into configuration advice. Moreover, the information is outdated and inaccurate — some of it never was true, and none of it is referenced, meaning that the page also violates either WP:CITE or WP:NOR. The article itself warns that its content isn't accurate; the information it provides would be better suited to Category:Web browsers and associated articles anyway. We should delete this article, and move any salvageable content into the article for the relevant browser. —donhalcon╤ 14:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Reorganise layout and provide links to named browser articles. The comparison is the most useful aspect of the information.
  • Keep. This is not remotely indiscriminant, but a well-presented features list. My only criticism is that it will be very difficult to keep up to date, but if the editors are willing to do so, it's a useful reference. Removing detail to individual browser articles would defeat the purpose. In fact, I referenced Comparison_of_wiki_software last week and found it useful. bikeable (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Utility is not at issue, only whether the information belongs in the encyclopedia namespace in list form. —donhalcon╤ 16:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Utility is irrelevant"? I disagree; ease of use is critical in an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias have plenty of lists when comparison between items is appropriate. I agree that categories would be better for many things on wikipedia, but not for comparisons like the ones you have nominated. bikeable (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • He didn't say "irrelevant, he said "not at issue." Meaning "not disputed"--it's clearly a useful list. I'm torn--I worry about maintainability. That doesn't matter for fancruft, but it does for an article people might use to make decisions about things. On balance, though, it's a good article, well-presented, hard to see how else it could be done. So: Weak keep. · rodii · 03:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • (Not to belabor the point, but the edit summary said, "utility is irrelevant". bikeable (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep — Interesting information. Not suitable for categories. — RJH 17:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How, exactly, could this information be replaced by a category? Table form works well here. Smerdis of Tlön 17:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content into other, more encyclopedic articles. For example, Web browser#Brief history could be spun off into its own article, which would incorporate the browser release history table. Some of the other tables could (and probably should) be integrated into Web browser. There is a load of useful information there (much of which, based on a quick Googling, hasn't been aggregated anywhere else). --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a pretty good idea, actually. If the content can be verified and cleaned up, it could make a nice addition to another (more encyclopedic) article. —donhalcon╤ 19:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, as the nom is making a WP:POINT (see his edit history). Also, per WP:NOT, structured lists are fine. This is not a "mere list." See also WP:LIST. I'm a huge fan of removing a bunch of software lists, but the comparsison articles are generally good (and, this one in particular, is fine). --Karnesky
  • (Speedy) keep no compelling reason to delete. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep per WP:POINT. -- Andy Saunders 20:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:POINT deals with users performing an action for the purpose of having some similar action criticized or banned. I, however, actually don't think that these articles belong in an encyclopedia. Expressing that view through the proper channels isn't even close to being included in WP:POINT. —donhalcon╤ 20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that this single nomination would not WP:POINT, but you also {{prod}}ed and re-{{prod}}ed another 70 "Comparison..." articles today, and that has the appearance of a major (unilateral) policy shift. Before nominating dozens of pages for deletion under your own theories of list-appropriateness, perhaps you should look for consensus? I'd start with Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. bikeable (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The re-prod was a result of a misunderstanding on my part and was not intended maliciously (see my talk page). Centralized discussion has also been suggested to me by others and I will look into it. —donhalcon╤ 21:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the appropriate information to each browser's article. That way, the information is accessible in relevant articles. One could simply utilize each browser's information into its own series of tables in each article. -- ProfMoriarty 20:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Qutezuce 21:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a pretty good article. Comparison articles are fine as long as they are verifiable. Rhobite 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as this is being kept up to date, this is useful information and very structured. -- Mithent 22:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful information providing it is kept up-to-date. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs considerable improvement to be of an encyclopediac nature though. At the moment it is a collection of information. The table format should be removed where possible. --Midnighttonight 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and keep up to date as well.  :) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep See WP:POINT - donhalcon has a thing against comparisons. It also appears that if you read donhalcon's userpage, he has given up on his campain against comparisons and decided to leave Wikipedia altogether. Perhaps it would be worth reverting the proposal to delete? --ZacBowling 02:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Like other comparison pages with a similar format, this information is useful. -- Markus24 03:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  16:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NMP Management[edit]

A talent agency. Gets google hits, but then you'd expect it to. Question is, is it really a notable business? Article also counts as vanity, seeing as it was created by User:Nmpmanagement. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Francs2000 14:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 22:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange[edit]

Stock exchange members are a very dynamic list, as there are so many factors involved, so keeping this list current and accurate will forseeably be a logistical nightmare. Besides, the vast majoirty of the organizations listed here are redded out. This would be much more useful and practical as a category (Category:Members of the Tokyo Stock Exchange), than as a fixed list. Esprit15d 14:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just put this up, so I might be a little biased. That said:
  1. Keeping this list current and accurate will take some editing, but the information is easy to check against the TSE's website; it's certainly no more difficult a task than keeping up the list of destinations served from an airport.
  2. Yes, most of the companies have not been written up yet. My main purpose for wikifying the list was to see which firms have articles and which don't. Because so many of the firms have no articles, this is not practical as a category yet (we would be left with a very incomplete list mostly consisting of major international investment banks). - Sekicho 15:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to category as per nom and Delete. Currently contains no useful information not obtainable from TSE website. Regards, Ben Aveling 17:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not convert to category. That would be much much worse as many global financial companies could end up in categories for dozens of stock exchanges creating hideous category clutter. Membership of particular stock exchanges just isn't a major characteristic for them. As for deleting the article or not, I don't mind either way. Honbicot 18:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • hard delete no categorization per Honbicot. JoshuaZ 21:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Fg2 10:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could use a brief sentence or two stating the significance of being a member – what members can do (presumably, all trades have to happen between member institutions?), and so on. Neier 12:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No real case has been presented for its deletion, so the only thing I can do is vote keep for now. I think "dozens of stock exchanges" is an exaggeration, considering we're talking about the TSE here (the second/third largest in the world) and not "Franky Lou's Exchange Mobile". Contains no useful information not obtainable from the TSE website is an absolutely bogus argument: 90% of Wikipedias information is freely available on the internet, so we just delete all of it?  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  00:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  16:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Wrestling[edit]

This is probably not incoherent enough to qualify for speedy deletion. It certainly isn't anything enough to qualify as an encyclopedia article, though... Shimgray | talk | 14:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  16:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elqx[edit]

Taken off prod by its creator. Non-notable company that garners a whopping 14 Google hits with apparently no products ("coming soon" according to infobox). howcheng {chat} 21:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge with Mario.  (aeropagitica)  16:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario day[edit]

Looks to be a vanity page, does not cite sources or explain the impact outside of a town in Missouri. Vote to delete unless sources can be found, and even then I'd merge with Mario. Grinnblade 01:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


No vanity is intended. There is a community of people that have celebrated this officially for the past few years on various high school and college campuses in Missouri. Word of it has also spread through various video game message boards like IGN and such. The article is still in a work in progress, though merging with Mario wouldn't be viewed as negative. Cheapham 20:41, 7 March 2006 (CST)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge with Mario. While it could be construed as notable (and I'm stretching, here), it really doesn't qualify for more than a paragraph on a trivia section of the primary article.--み使い Mitsukai 15:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mario. A made-up holiday may be interesting trivia, but probably don't deserve its own article. - Rynne 18:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per:

"How to Celebrate

What follows are general suggestions on how one is to conduct a day devoted to the famous Italian Plummer:

  • Gather friends together with food and music
  • Play as many Mario-themed games as possible (ref. List of Mario Games)
  • Dress as your favorite Mario Characters
  • Watch Mario-themed videos and films
  • Sing Mario-themed songs"

savidan(talk) (e@) 18:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've reworked and reworded much of it to be more neutral and I've provided outside information and references to establish legitimacy. Cheapham 23:31, 7 March 2006 (CST)
  • Merge as per Mitsukai, I just don't think there's enough to say on the subject to warrent its own article. Mallocks 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eivind. Stifle 01:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 21:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mastadex Hero Editor[edit]

I am not quite sure why the VfD tag was put up with no explanation. If I don't hear any complaints, I'll just take the VfD notice down. Chotchki 20:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The anon's edit summary said "NPOV violation, obvious advertisment". The first isn't a reason for deletion, of course, but the second certainly is. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, a cheat program. Which aren't notable unless they involve some serious groundbreaking reverse-engineering wizardry, or perhaps a massive lawsuit... and even then they're better described in the articles of the game itself. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1) If this is an advertisement, why aren't all entries for Diablo itself? And all other entries for computer programs for that matter? 2) As a wikipedia user and beginning Diablo player who knows next to nothing about editing characters, I actually found this article useful and informative. Lawyer2b 06:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find this article both useful and notable, even though it's nature may not be liked by some, we can't deny it's existence. - Discombobulatortalk 14:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is no where near WP:SOFTWARE were it policy. I do miss Jamella's though. kotepho 14:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  16:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramanuja Vijayaraghavan[edit]

Created by User:Rvramanujan. Returns 3 Google links[23]. Delete as non-notable. I've already copied the content to the user page. utcursch | talk 08:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Appears to be highly notable Indian scientist. Google searches are stymied by Indian (and journal) practice of identifying him as "R. Vijayaraghavan", and there are quite a few notable Indian academics identified that way. And one of them frequently writes on superconductivity and magnetism, which indicates the article is verifiable. Monicasdude 01:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep needs to be edited; but this person actually has published papers (Google Scholar) [24]. DevanJedi 02:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have wikified it and removed unnecessary info. This person seems legitimate; a few smart Google searches are required to verify but definitely not worth deleting. Search 'vijayaraghavan magnetism' or 'vijayaraghavan tifr' and Ramannuja Vijayaraghavan is also listed on Iyengar DevanJedi 02:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe in a delete just for the sake of WP:AUTO. If you believe that the article needs to be cleaned up, then let us work on it. Since Gurubrahma and Thatcher131 actually seem to believe that he is notable, deletion simply to make a point about WP:AUTO seems unnecessary. If we agree that he is notable, then the article only adds to the Wikipedia; I think the only point of contention should be whether he is notable or not. DevanJedi 14:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote veering towards weak delete. I have no doubts that he is notable as he is also a recipient of the Bhatnagar award. However, it appears to be a violation of WP:AUTO and also the present content of the article is unverifiable. I think that WP:AUTO violations are bad for the project. --Gurubrahma 07:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Gurubrahma. Thatcher131 12:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per DevanJedi While it reads like a CV it should be kept as the subjects' works and positions make the person notable. Afterall wikipedia has thousands of obscure Christian authors with vanity press books, I think wikipedia can handle saving one article on a Indian scientist. Arbusto 09:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As notable and fine with a little clean up kotepho 15:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge with Voice over IP. Angr/talk 21:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click to Call[edit]

The vast majority of the article had to be deleted for copyright violations, and what remains is the only discernaible original portion. The article is very spammny. May be able to converted into a real article, but from googling the existing text, looks like it has been deleted before from WP. Esprit15d 15:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by me per CSD:G7 - author blanked the page, no other contributors except prods, afds, and speedy tags. Stifle 01:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmont_Bowl[edit]

Delete. This article was Prodded, the original author then blanked the article completely. It was originally about a flag football game, which is certainly non-notable.--Xyzzyplugh 15:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Xyzzyplugh 15:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then speedy. -- Andy Saunders 20:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per A7. Angr/talk 15:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knife Band[edit]

DELETE Usually I am all for band articles, however the user User:Bearbrian seems to be gaurding the page and reverts any edits, despite attempts to compromise. He insists on using unencyclopedic descriptions of the band for instants claiming it was formed in 1578 rather than 2000. Since this article (and it's mirrors) and the band's myspace profile are the only thing that show up in google, I'm going to have to suggest this article be deleted on the grounds that Knife Band is not notable, the page is vanity, and User:Bearbrian insists on filling it with incorrect data which compromises the integrity of the Wikipedia --The_stuart 15:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by drini as patent nonsense. Stifle 01:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spliffwood[edit]

  • Delete. Original author has blanked the page now, but it was a neologism. Xyzzyplugh 15:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've never heard of "Cliffwood" as a Toronto neighbourhood. There is Cliffside, but I didn't think it was particularly well known for drug use. joshbuddytalk 16:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  15:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Internet forum software[edit]

This article is an annotated list of external links, and not appropriate to an encyclopedia. Furthermore, it has no references, and no information as to importance. —donhalcon╤ 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: this is not indiscriminant, but a well-presented features list. References are implicit in external links to software web pages. Same vote as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browsers. bikeable (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bikeable's comment joshbuddytalk 16:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful.  Grue  16:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, arguments arguing for the article's deletion are unpersuasive. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, as the nom is making a WP:POINT (see his edit history). Also, per WP:NOT, structured lists are fine. This is not a "mere list." See also WP:LIST. I'm a huge fan of removing a bunch of software lists, but the comparsison articles are generally good (and, this one in particular, is fine). --Karnesky
    • The only point I'm making is a perfectly legitimate one, that non-encyclopedic articles don't belong in an encyclopedia. Last time I checked, making a legitimate request that an unencyclopedic page be deleted wasn't included in WP:POINT, which is concerned only with performing actions for the specific purpose of having those and similar actions criticized or banned. —donhalcon╤ 19:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed my "speedy" vote, as I'll take you at your word. I still think your AfDs and prods were over-zealous. Some of your tagging was also over-zealous. This article should definitely be kept, as it fails any test for deletion. Perhaps it should be cleaned up--I will withold judgement until you are more specific as to what you wish to have cleaned up. --Karnesky 19:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful article. Rhobite 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We seem to have a working, de facto consensus that unencyclopedic articles do, *occasionally*, belong in an encyclopedia ; ) . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - there's many more articles like this and this article serves a point of being a quick refrence to compare diffrent forua software. References might be needed, but thats a cleanup tag, not an AfD tag. NeoThermic 04:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful, interesting, and well referenced. It'd be a shame to lose such a resource. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I came to this article because I needed it as a reference in a memo on installing forum software on a government website. So get rid of this AfD tag already! :-) Sandstein 07:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found this article extremely helpful. Please do not delete unless you have something vastly superior to replace it with IMMEDIATELY. The article provides useful external links for further research. Without this article, I would have wasted hours of time & still come up with a comparitively inferior result. Now I can build on this info & use the time the artile saved me to get the answers for my specific questions on the internet.

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)  15:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lllama[edit]

What the? Even if it is verifiable does it really need its own article? *Francs2000 15:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It seems unneeded. If it is, then it should be merged into Ogden Nash. joshbuddytalk 16:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Oh please, do we need an article for every made-up word found in poetry? That will be another million articles! Slowmover 22:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strond Delete as absolute nonsense. Eivind 23:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN - Hairy Dude 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appreciative delete. Pooh. · rodii · 03:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could merge to Ogden Nash but I doubt they'll want it. Dlyons493 Talk 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  15:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkera Media[edit]

Non-notable business, that gets all of 4 unique google hits. Counts as vanity, seeing as the article was started by User:Darkera global logistics. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Francs2000 16:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB note also Darkera which is a duplicate article to this one.

  • I must protest that if Speedcore is a relevant entry; as is Mister joker; to the music community - then Darkera has also has relevance as a free-distribution artistic archive for this EXACT subject. Notability is subjective to the readers own bias. Followers of the Hardcore Techno movement would argue this "non-notability" Discrimination based on popularity would be ACTUAL vanity, especially if it led to the removal of this article. A curious Wikipedian might venture a search for "hardcore music labels" or something similar > only to find countless entries referring to artists, bands and labels. So why punish just this ONE of many "offenders"? 64.180.249.186 16:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Vanity for a definition of what we mean when we say "it's vanity". Speedcore actually gets 333,000 which would demonstrate notability to me; even Mister Joker gets 325 (that article itself is borderline and most certainly fits what we would define as vanity here). -- Francs2000 16:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Magdela 16:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the article has been up for less then a day only... to remove it instantly doesn't even give it a fair chance to reveal its importance. Darkera is of much more significance than it has been granted here.

I would agree that the Darkera Media article should be merged with Darkera as it is obviously redundant. 64.180.249.186 17:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I think you are missing the point. The company is either worthy of recognition or it isn't. How many CDs has it released and how many copies have they sold? How many culturally significant artists have they produced? If Darkera's goal is to establish the significance of currently unknown artists that is a terriffic goal but it means that Darkera does not currently deserve a Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia recognizes notability, it is not a tool to develop notability. Thatcher131 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darkera is an Emeriging music label representing a vast varity of musical content. you expect something that its only been up for one day to get a million hits or so? thats ridiculas. artists as much as labels need recogination. censoring something after a total of 24 hours without prior seeing what the full results maybe are not only ludacriss but also obscenly stupid and hindering.

Someone mentioned you cant find DE content well here is the brief history of the label so far try going to Discogs. YOU can not even get content on that site unless its proved to have beeen released and offical http://www.discogs.com/label/Darkera try looking on sites that sell Dj releated vinyls, things RR and hardcorestore, Sector-1 etc things that generate for the community, rather then some lame search on probley what HMV Uk or some place that deals with Mainstream releases

Djamunra 17:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As I think you need to learn to count Darkera Unique hits are 501 not 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djamunra (talk • contribs)


OK - so I have retuned the Darkera article and begun development of a useful discussion. Hopefully this will help to answer some of the questions arising here.

vanity was certainly not the intent of this information, however I understand that the original entry was not useful. Quite to the opposite, the main drive of the DE movement has always been the free and unbiased release of music. Even so, this has not prevented the release of purchasable hardcopy albums as well.

Any constructive suggestions of how to imporve this article will be well taken :o)

||[Darkera Global Logistics]|| 20:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Emerging" does not equal "notable". Let them advertise in Rolling Stone. Slowmover 22:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Independent labels rarely have the money or resources to advertise in such a publication. This is not an ad; it is public domain infomation on a currently under-developed topic. 140.161.67.104 01:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Deleting a small but growing company made by people who work all day at a real job to fund their dream project would defeat the utopian concept of an open and free internet that may have created wikipedia.

64.180.25.36 06:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Rewrote main page, fixed miscatagorization & started to add links to valid externel media.

I would suggest to anyone who still considers Darkera an unnotable contributor to the speedcore scene: please review Project: Enigma. This vinyl is being released next month at I Hate Trance (notice that both Hellseeker & Gabba Front Berlin are playing in area 1 - speedcore/terror). I Hate Trance is a popular repeat party organized by the reputable Underground For Ever. Click here if you want a ticket.

This will bring Darkera's hardcopy count to 4 ~ 1 cd, 2 vinyls and a DVD. Subsiduary Gateway clocks in with 9 releases.

13 albums is notable.

||[Darkera Global Logistics]|| 08:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not verifiable as it stands. Not prejudiced against a proper recreate. Stifle 01:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted by User:Angr. Flowerparty■ 22:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Alcock[edit]

Delete. Vanity page. No more notable than typical academic.Still A Student 16:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No obvious claim to notability. Delete pending such claim. Regards, Ben Aveling 17:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. Edgar181 23:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ben Aveling. Stifle 01:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Research publications. This article should not have been deleted, BTW. The discussion was closed prematurely. Mr. Pincus F. 06:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any academic does. Heck, I have research publications. I assure you, it doesn't make me notable. :-) I agree that article should not have been deleted yet, though I think it will have come to the same thing in the end. Ben Aveling 18:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  15:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of BitTorrent software[edit]

Unsourced, non-encyclopedic list of links, subsumed by Category:BitTorrent clients. —donhalcon╤ 16:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article is useful. - Krohon 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Diddek
  • Keep - Same vote as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browsers. bikeable (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per bikeable's comment joshbuddytalk 16:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for reasons already noted. Smerdis of Tlön 17:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - list of BitTorrent software has recently been merged into this article (already reduced redundancy), the list is easy to verify (partially from the individual Client articles) and can be used as a quick overview of the different aspects of each client which can't be achieved by digging through each article in Category:BitTorrent clients --89.55.210.75 18:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - as the nom is making a WP:POINT (see his edit history). Also, per WP:NOT, structured lists are fine. This is not a "mere list." See also WP:LIST. I'm a huge fan of removing a bunch of software lists, but the comparsison articles are generally good (and, this one in particular, is fine). The cat does not subsume this, as it lacks the comparison points. "Unsourced" is not a criteria for deletion. --Karnesky
  • Keep - Qutezuce 21:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful article. Rhobite 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as above. -- Mithent 22:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful article, plus if someone really wanted to verify all the information, looking through each client or their website/article is source enough.70.45.50.121 20:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Can hardly be called "unsourced", each client name links to the corresponding entry in Wikipedia, which in turn links to the client's official website. It would not make sense to me to delete this article without deleting the pages it is based on -- 194.158.98.40 22:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above comments. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 17:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an excellant resource as is, only to be improved with further edits. 69.14.176.70 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's the most useful comparsion that google can send you to actually. It misses some more 'in depth' tests, but it's definitely a good resource.
  • Keep as it's one of the better and more useful comparison articles.--Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 19:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Information not found in categories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  15:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Lewis[edit]

Delete. No more notable than the typical academic. Still A Student 16:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ""Public Entrepreneurship: Toward a Theory of Bureaucratic Political Power" does have 40 cites according to google schoolar, at least when spelt correctly. Not a hell of a lot, but google scholar misses a lot. So Neutral. Ben Aveling 17:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep first it was Violinists, then Economists and now it's Delete Political Scientists Week! He was Provost of his college. Dlyons493 Talk 21:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Someone who is provost of a university is notable. JoshuaZ 22:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet notability requirements to me. Edgar181 23:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless "no more notable than the typical Pokemon creature," "no more notable than the typical porn star," and "no more notable than the typically inbred British peer" became policy grounds for article deletion in the last day or so. Monicasdude 01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is intended to "set the bar rather low" and written to supplant the very much non-consensus standard you listed. Monicasdude 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. It would seem consensus will be to keep, and I'm comfortable with that. But the "non-consensus" standard I listed was meant to reflect the standard expressed on that page. If being a typical academic makes one notable, every person with an office in my building meets the standard. And I suppose soon enough, they will all have articles. Still A Student 02:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contemporary Authors Online on Galenet has him credited with four books which seem to have been widely reviewed. That makes him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He meets notability requirements. DanaBassett 20:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Crobat test. Stifle 01:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 21:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD-Wiki[edit]

Notability problems abakharev 17:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. User:Gimme a reason to keep this put it on Prod as Yet another wiki startup (YAWS) that fails Wikipedia:Notability (websites) (no press coverage) so I am listing it on AfD. Yes, this wiki is small and might not have press coverage but it has quite a number of good written articles on CFD and numerical methods. I have already transferred to us four of them and intend to transfer a few more (the texts there are GFDL). I feel it is very impolite to use their texts and to not explain there they come from, so I think it is worth to keep this short article about their texts as it is used in the Template:CFDWiki. abakharev 18:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It occurs to me that no good reason to override Wikipedia's guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability (websites)} have been stated above. Wouldn't it be better to remain consistent and follow the guidelines that have been agreed to by the community? No vote. James084 21:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CFD-Wiki contains material from several scientific articles, reports and PhD thesises and thereby meets the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.254.113 (talk • contribs)
    • Delete It's a wiki that any stranger can register and edit. How can scientific articles, reports and PhD theses exist in such a site?! Transfering text from wikis or citing wikis as sources is akin to citing a CyberDude's post in some CyberWebForum. Seriously, sir, WP:WEB criteria 3 cannot apply to publicly-editable wikis. In this case, it fails #1 and #2, too. --Perfecto 00:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
— Rebelguys2 talk 16:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my comments in the first debate. James084 16:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Perfecto. PJM 17:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Adrian. Mallocks 20:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Perfecto. See also [[WP:WEB]. Stifle 00:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of eponymous albums (songwise)[edit]

I don't know how it managed to survive the first nomination. Perhaps people didn't understand that this is a list of albums which have the song on them with the same title... which is about 90% of all albums that are not eponymous with the artist. Delete.  Grue  16:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd guess it survived because people actually wanted it? People are willing to update it and it's no worse than any of the other lists on Wikipedia. (I like and update them too, I don't see the problem when WP is limitless in space.) Keep. Satan's Rubber Duck 18:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update it? You mean add about thousand of albums that it doesn't include? Yes, it's worse than most of the lists, because most of the lists contain things that have some interesting properties, not something that's true for 50% of these things. Hell, it even does have "similar but not quite there" section as if the main section doesn't have potential to be the largest list in Wikipedia. We don't need an article titled list of FOO when it in fact doesn't contain even 10% of FOO. That's just misleading.  Grue  19:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly I'd argue with your figures in the first comment, as by checking my own CD collection I'd estimate about only 30% of albums have a matching or near-matching track. Secondly, perhaps a move to List of songs with the same name as albums (to be a counterpart to List of songs with the same name as song artists). I don't think the "similar but" section should be there for any of the lists to be honest, so that could be removed... eh. Let's see how the vote goes. Satan's Rubber Duck 12:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The worst kind of listcruft. Replace, if absolutely necessary, with Category: Albums containing a song of the same title. --keepsleeping slack off! 19:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how about Albums with the preformer on the cover, or Bands with a bassist. Listcruft. Eivind 23:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was among the out-voted last time, but I am unrepentant. I love lists; and rarely vote to kill them but here it needs to go. My reasons before -- and now -- are basically that it was nearly every album and impossible to be even reasonably complete. I also noted that by eponymous one might assume that there would be some connection between the artists' names and their songs. I still feel it needs a retitle if we decide to keep this. Carlossuarez46 19:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - a list that is bascally limitless. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Please see Wikipedia:Listcruft for further reasoning. Stifle 00:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful list that would be even better if it was organized by musical genre. In many ways, this list is far less silly than some of our other song lists because it is something people like to discuss. -- JJay 02:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Eddie Robinson (baseball player).  (aeropagitica)  10:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Robinson (baseball)[edit]

duplicate of Eddie Robinson (baseball player) McGill1974 16:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create a redirect, especially since article has a link. -- Egil 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Edgar181 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects are cheap. Stifle 00:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  10:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost gripes[edit]

Unrefernced neologism, google shows five unrelated hits. I doubt it's widely used. Delete. Grandmasterka 16:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. JoshuaZ 21:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Edgar181 23:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 00:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep or merge with Winnipeg. I'm not merging it myself, but if someone else wants to they can use this discussion to support that decision (5 people are for a merger, 3 for a separate article). Angr/talk 20:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Winnipeg[edit]

delete, This information is already included in Winnipeg, Manitoba article. Magdela 16:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, I think we need to expand this page. There needs to be a page that focuses on the history, current state and future of downtown Winnipeg in more depth. lee_haber8 1:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to the Winnipeg article. -- Andy Saunders 19:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even with the additions, my vote stays with merge and redirect. -- Andy Saunders 16:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Winnipeg article. There may be a need for a downtown Winnipeg article, but until someone is prepared to write a decent one, this topic is aptly handled by the main Winnipeg article. Skeezix1000 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC) - Well unless somebody has a few hours in their busy schedule to make a brilliant article in one go I seriously don't think that's going to happen. The article exists so that people can add to it whenever. We would be killing it before it has a chance to grow, and there certainly is room for it. Lee Haber[reply]
  • Redirect to Winnipeg per above -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What is the problem with short articles? We have plenty of them, they are there so people can expand on them. Making this a redirect or deleting it will not encourage expansion. Qutezuce 22:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Winnipeg. This article serves no useful purpose as a breakout. Denni ☯ 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Denni. Martinp 03:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has now been expanded, and now contains information that is not in the Winnipeg article. Qutezuce 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has more substance now. I think you can get rid of the deletion tag Lee Haber
    • Lee, I'm not so sure that we have Keep consensus, even with the additions. -- Andy Saunders 16:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm from Winnipeg, and I think I know what I'm talking about. Besides the people who want to delete probably haven't seen the updates. Lee Haber 16:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know you're from Winnipeg. There's a difference between "keep" and "merge/redirect", though. Andy Saunders 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the fate of this article is to be merged into Winnipeg, then in the name of being consistent one would seem to have to apply that same fate to each of the following articles: Wolseley, Manitoba, West Kildonan, Old Kildonan, River Heights, Manitoba, Saint Boniface, Manitoba, St. James-Assiniboia, St. Vital, Manitoba, Fort Rouge, Manitoba, Fort Garry, Manitoba, East Kildonan, Manitoba, Tuxedo, Manitoba, Transcona, Manitoba, North Kildonan, Crescentwood, Manitoba. They are all different areas of Winnipeg, no more or less notable then Downtown Winnipeg. I think we need to be consistent. Either all those articles are merged into Winnipeg, or they get seperate articles. Qutezuce 23:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has separate articles about many cities' individual neighbourhoods; I don't see a convincing reason why Winnipeg should be an exception. Plus, although more expansion is certainly possible, the article itself is perfectly valid (if a bit stubbish) in its own right. Keep. Bearcat 00:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  10:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mister joker[edit]

Vanity (sole other editor to article was User:Misterjoker). Query over notability too. Article was pointed out in another afd debate here with a comment, "well if that's allowed to stay why not this one?" The answer is because nobody has nominated it for deletion yet. Francs2000 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep, WP:SNOW — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of file systems[edit]

  • Keep. I don't really care if the other comparisons get deleted, but I would about this one. I consider myself a quite knowledgable in the area of file systems and am certain this comparison can meet WP:V. About the duplication with the articles on individual articles... I think it would be preferable if this comparision could be generated automatically from the articles, but until we have the technology available to do just that I think this article would best be kept. —Ruud 17:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. Every one of these articles has been prod tagged without any reason given. That is just plain vandalism. Given that lots of editors have worked on these and there are often on going discussions concerning content and merges, they all, at the very least, merit individual examination. -- JJay 17:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no brainer, let's not waste too much time deliberating/discussing this. What crazy fool nominated this? --OscarTheCattalk 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the proviso that someone with expertise really needs to add some encyclopedic text which explains the significance of each of the tables. --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oscarthecat, please review WP:CIVIL. That being said, keep, obviously, and cleanup per Allan McInnes. Why is this even here? The pointless PRODs were immediately gone, after all. Sandstein 18:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, without the need to call anyone a fool. PJM 18:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, as the nom is making a WP:POINT (see his edit history). Also, per WP:NOT, structured lists are fine. This is not a "mere list." See also WP:LIST. I'm a huge fan of removing a bunch of software lists, but the comparsison articles are generally good (and, this one in particular, is fine). Also: nom didn't even suggest a reason for deletion in this nomination. --Karnesky
  • Keep. And please remove moderator privileges from the moron who listed it. Is there any process to vote for that? --Alkrow 20:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you talking to me? —Ruud 20:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh wait... You first nominate it for deletion and then vote Keep. I am confused now. You signed with a different username. --Alkrow 20:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, from the looks of the edit history, he saw the prod tag on this page, and went "Hell No, this shouldn't be prodded.", prompting him to create an AfD and come straight here with a keep vote. It says that contested deletions should be brought to AfD, there's nothing said that the person that brings the article here should want it deleted. The original prodder does not appear to want to comment on his/her reasons for deletion.-- Saberwyn 21:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Powers that Be, can we get a speedy keep and early close, please? -- Saberwyn 21:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  10:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

日曜日[edit]

This is a direct copy of the article "日曜日" in Wiktionary. [25] This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary, so the article doesn't belong here. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 17:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These sinograms are not a valid title for an article in the English language Wikipedia. We already have Sunday. Smerdis of Tlön 18:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Sunday. Angr/talk 21:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  10:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bud Skip[edit]

Was tagged as Speedy twice. Was {{prod}}ed twice. Was marked as a hoax. All tags removed by anonymous IPs without comment. So now it's here. While I am only a passing fan of NASCAR I've never heard of this guy. Google searches on various variations of his name come up empty. A NASCAR driver that died in an automobile accident would have had some news coverage somewhere. Note also the link to Hillary Clinton. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • AfD removed as well. Delete as unverifiable, with plenty of chances given to redeem the article already. NickelShoe 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The creating editor and primary contributor to the article has been warned multiple times for vandalism, primarily of an anti-Clinton bent. —Wrathchild (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible, as total bollocks. Angr/talk 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Fan1967 23:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as hoax--Porturology 00:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; has vandal fingerprints all over it. OhNoitsJamieTalk 02:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  10:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper rock[edit]

Appears to be dubious own research. I can't find any evidence of any existing sources providing any critical analysis of the term "Hyper rock". If not own research and is verifiable, then almost certainly non-notable BigBlueFish 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't see it as a widely used term: [26]. PJM 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, possible neologism. - Rynne 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP well its a genre, i use it at school all the time, the NME uses it to describe Muse and there are more bands coming out like them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.184.52 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP Bill Mike performed with his band, drummer Steve Goold and prolific bassist Chris Morrissey (Mason Jennings, Haley Bonar), and the trio formed a tight unit of deliriously fun hyper-rock"

http://www.howwastheshow.com/reviews-2005/reticence-12-10-05.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashburn (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Not a common term at all. There seems to be some confusion between describing a band as "hyper rock" and actual genre terms. WesleyDodds 10:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Exactly. I have yet to see hyper used as anything but a descriptive adjective. I'd also be interested to see this NME citation, or a band that describes themselves as hyper rock. BigBlueFish 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of verifiability. Stifle 00:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Anyone see that program about the NME on the 10th march, BBC 2? in states that anyone can make up a genre, as they did - 'Camden horror' & 'Figgle' where made by non-musicians, but critics, one writer in the NME grouped together as little as 3 bands and stated they are a new genre, and this was accepted. This is the beauty of musical creativity and creation in general, anyone can do it. so from now on, with or without the 'law' of wikipedia, there is a new genre in the musical world known as 'Hyper rock' - bands in this catagory are mostly unsigned, apart from Muse. Unsigned ones include ones from my area - Zeitgueist, Hyperlight and Zero— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.184.52 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete-per nom. DVD+ R/W 23:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research until proved otherwise. -- Karada 00:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Angr/talk 20:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sangu delle[edit]

non-notable biography, npov, person probably wrote it himself delete Wangster 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Post-colonialism. Angr/talk 20:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postcolonial literary criticism[edit]

Patent nonsense. Creator appears to be vandalism-only account. Rbellin|Talk 17:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Would be a title for a possible legitimate article, of course, but this is a joke. Lukas (T.|@) 19:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Post-colonialism, as per Rbellin's suggestion below. Lukas (T.|@) 20:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (forgot to vote above) Delete or redirect to post-colonialism, the aforementioned legitimate article. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to post-colonialism. Real phrase, but doesn't merit a separate article. --Allen 00:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legitimate Article. Cannot be relinked to post-colonialism because that is the era itself, while this article refers to the relation of the post-colonialism to contemporary literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogface1 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, This is indubitably a well-written and well-supported article. Postcolonial theory is properly represented by this member's addition. In my opinion, this article must remain. —the preceding comment is by 206.82.16.35 - 17:09, 8 March 2006: Please sign your posts!
  • Delete, probable hoax. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Article appears to be based on verifible information, and is credible.

--68.80.69.244 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it, I have done some preliminary research on this subject. Most if not all of this article is both varifiable and useful. Article should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogface3 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, I certainly feel that Dogface3 could not be more correct. This article is in agreement with other research performed by myself on the subject of postcolonialism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.167.200 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete - hopeless US-centrism: "post-colonial" in this context doesn't mean "relating to the US post-1776" (or certainly doesn't just mean that). Until post-colonialism is big enough and good enough to need a separate page about the litcrit aspects, this should be a redirect. --Bth 11:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody ever uses the word to mean this; it's not just US-centrism, it's patent nonsense. And the apparent sockpuppetry going on in this AfD confirms my suspicion it's intended as vandalism/trolling. I'm happy to write a legitimate article on this subject at some point, but what's there now is really just speedy-deletion material. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. Someone is trying to find the limits of what Wikipedia accepts. Pavel Vozenilek 22:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there was no previous page on this topic so i think this person is doing the academic community a favor. i think it would be utter nonsense to keep this person from helping those who need it. it will encourage others to join and aid for the better good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.85.160.166 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, This article provides the proper foundation for an excellent article on postcolonial literary criticism. Its information is accurate. Therefore, it should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.82.16.35 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, Well-founded; much thought was put into this article. It is ludicrous to label this attempt to provide valid information as sockpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.82.16.35 (talk • contribs)
    • One user, one contribution please. Stifle 00:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of excess sockpuppetry and a complete lack of context. Stifle 00:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. I counted 3 keeps and 3 deletes among established Wikipedians, discounted votes from IPs, users whose first contributions were after this AFD began, and users whose only contributions were to the article and this AFD. Angr/talk 20:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BZPower[edit]

Fixed AfD listing. Nominator abstains.  — TheKMantalk 18:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Most of the article is a list of moderators and staff, which is unencyclopedic anyway. Zetawoof 21:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On reconsideration, I'm changing my vote to keep. With the list of moderators and staff removed, it looks a lot more reasonable. The Alexa rank is pretty good, too. Zetawoof 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete it does turn up 17google hits. JoshuaZ 22:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    • 17? I count something more like 55,000. Zetawoof 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I seem to have googled "BZPower 3" instead of BZPower. I am therefore changing my vote to keep. JoshuaZ 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the largest fan-based Bionicle website--seems notable enough to me. keep. authraw 01:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it is the largest Bionicle fan site I don't think it should stay. It's just a means of advertisment. delete Matt "AgentA" 03:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just the same as having a link to the Official Bionicle Website forums. I say Keep --Darnz
  • I don't see anything wrong with having it. I also say Keep -Lihyahm
  • It's almost entirely an advert. Delete Voporak 13:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add more enclyclopedic information and it should be good to go keep Timekeeper 13:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs improved, not deleted. Fact is, BZP is a very relevent site, it would be silly to delete an article on it. As far as it being an advertisement, BZP hardly needs advertisement. But I beleive that every site of note in the Bionicle community deserves reference; we're talking about the fan community of LEGO's most successful line, that helped save the company, and it is also the company that is more in-tune with its online fan community than virtually any other. There is just plain no justification for any arguement that sites like BZP or MoD do not deserve their own encyclopedic reference, unless you want to argue that the LEGO company is not noteworthy. I see nobody arguing that. keep --Bonesiii 21:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. Discount sock/meatpuppet votes. Ifnord 18:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  10:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Console Classix[edit]

Obvious advertisement.--FelineFanatic13talk

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■ 19:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roles and Responsibilities of Professionals Working with Abuse and Neglect[edit]

My prod on this article was removed without explanation. Wikipedia is not an information manual or a career planning guide. Delete. Grandmasterka 18:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Angr/talk 20:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this. A class on Child Abuse and Neglect is developing an article on the roles and responsibilities of those who work with families of abuse and neglect. It is an informational article not about careers but to better understand who is involved in working with these families and how they work with them. The article is being done by several people and they will complete edits and entries in a week. User:CDEC2304 9 March 2006

  • Comment I'm not sure the topic is unencyclopedic; whether it deserves its own article I'm not sure. Would it be too hard to even wait an hour after something is created to try and delete it though? That just reeks of biting the newbies and not AGF. kotepho 15:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most articles that are deleted are deleted within the first hour they are created because they are clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia. CDEC2304, I appreciate your efforts on this, but this doesn't seem encyclopedic; see what Wikipedia is not. Surely there is a class website or a newspaper or a brochure where you can publish this? And I wish more people would comment on this AfD... Grandmasterka 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. This belongs on Wikibooks, if anything. Stifle 00:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Ifnord 18:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  09:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fearghas Kelly[edit]

Vanity page of complete nonsense refering probabily to the author himself (FK.1). --Oakster 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, speedily if possible. Claims of notability are probably untrue. Claims to be a 5-time WWF world heavyweight champion, but the name Fearghas Kelly is conspicuously absent from here. Angr/talk 20:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure non-sense. Eivind 23:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed, pure nonsense. --Darren Jowalsen 23:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; outright fiction - this should be treated as vandalism and exploitation of wikipedia. McPhail 19:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the like. Wikipedia is not for complete bollocks. Stifle 00:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  09:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbours UK[edit]

This version of the original article about the Australian soap opera Neighbours was created recently because the programme is broadcast a few weeks later in the UK than it is in Australia and some UK viewers don't want to see "spoilers". It is therefore a fork and over time the two versions could become more and more divergent and perhaps inconsistent. Overall quality is likely to suffer if the editorial effort is divided. This is a very bad precedent as it could be applied to hundreds of programmes which are broadcast in more than one country. Spoiler warnings on the relevant sections are sufficient and if people want to be sure of avoiding all spoilers they can read an old version from the history. Delete Honbicot 18:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per well-argued nomination. dbtfztalk 20:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I live in the UK, Spoiler warnings are sufficient! Jxb311 | Talk 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to me if there is a genuine demand for this (which I doubt), some UK mirror site could host such a thing. Fan1967 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Eivind 23:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A fairly useless and unworkable idea. --Fuzzie (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fork article which would set a horrible precedent. Most television shows shown outside their country of origin are screened later than in the home market so we could have ER (UK), Desperate Housewives (Australia) and Lost (Ireland) as examples. Capitalistroadster 02:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork.--cj | talk 03:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Roisterer 07:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote to delete. While spoilers in in the main article are a problem for UK viewers (including myself), this separate page is definitely unencyclopaedic. NOTE: A small number of voters (including myself) have mistakenly posted to the Neighbours UK talk page. I was wondering why there had been so few votes! Hopefully the others will copy to here also. --Matthew Humphreys 11:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Originally thought keep but have changed my mind after reading other people's points. Canderra 14:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just use spoiler warnings. This would set a very poor precedent. I don't want to see "censored" articles for other shows. --Optichan 22:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  09:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Salvation Army in Bristol[edit]

DELETE-this is an article about one of many Salvation Army hostels around the country, and across the world. The building mentioned is not unique, and not of any encyclopaedic interest Rhyddfrydol 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Far from unique; definitely not encyclopedic. Zetawoof 21:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencylcopedic. Edgar181 23:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ^. Eivind 23:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Salvation Army. Arbusto 09:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep if building is of architectural interest, otherwise delete.
  • Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  09:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Salvation Army in specific locations[edit]

DELETE This page tells us nothing, and should be deleted Rhyddfrydol 19:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • List with one item, which is a stub and also on AFD. Delete.
  • Delete as unencylcopedic. Edgar181 23:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.
  • Delete: no content now, unencyclopedic if filled in. Pavel Vozenilek 22:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

===Berabow Man=== Remake of older copy/paste & search&replace article by part of User:193.164.112.20, careful reading reveals the article to be just a grossly made vandalism/joke, and the user has a well-known history of vandalism/unconstructive edits. All relevant info about the game's arcade version can already be found in the Bravoman article. EpiVictor 19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC) March listing is moot, was speedy redirected to Bravoman. Angr/talk 20:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. enochlau (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berabow Man[edit]

The Berabow Man article appears to be a shallow copy of the Bravoman article with just changes in the names, no images, and no apparent reason for creation e.g. like "Berabow Man" being an actual alternate name for the actual Namco's game Bravoman. Also, its author vandalized the original Bravoman page and redirected to his/her version. This article offers little or nothing extra information compared to the original, and has little reason to exist.

Berabow Man is NOT a shallow copy of the Bravoman article. The game name is BERABOW MAN based upon Namco's own listings: - BERABOW is in the default high score listing - BERABOW MAN is listed in the history of Namco games in Namco Museum Volume 1 (PS1) - BERABOW MAN is listed in the history of Namco games in the end credits of Dragon Saber (1990). Bravoman is just an NEC PC-Engine conversion of the game, translated into English.

I cross checked, and seen that there is indeed an arcade (Japanese only) "Beraboh Man" (the sources are uncertain between Berabow and Beraboh, however it's even emulated under MAME). But still, IMHO the best thing would still be merging the "Berabow man" info with the Bravoman article, as this is the most common name under which the game is known and under which its ENGLISH versions are known. And, gingerfield rocks, your article IS just a copy of the original, and claiming that it focuses on the original japanese arcade version while keeping the NEC's version english texts unaltered iand deleting the whole article is a bit hypocritical... EpiVictor 12:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, and add any "extra" information it may have to the original Bravoman article. EpiVictor 20:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing that "Berabow" or "Beraboh Man" really exists, I still favor my original proposal: Strong Delete and merge Beraboh/Berabow info and trivia with Bravoman article. EpiVictor 12:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it would probably be better to merge the info and redirect to the original Bravoman article than merely copying it and changing all Bravoman references to Berabow, including the english texts...you are merely contraddicting yourself by claiming that Berabow Man focuses on the "original arcade game" (in Japanese) while keeping all the original texts from the "english" PC-Engine version in your article....this is called duplicating an article, if I'm not wrong. If that was the case, then we should have continuous edit wars over Vega, M.Bison and Balrog, since the Japanese versions of Street Fighter games name them differently... EpiVictor 09:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  09:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanjo[edit]

Non-notable sandwich served (and discontinued years ago) by a single university cafeteria. Normally I would prod this, but the speedy was already contested (meaning, I feel prod would be a waste of time). Delete I am now changing my vote -- to Extremely strong delete, due to users that are now stalking me on IM due to my stance on this issue. Andy Saunders 19:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As there is no other place on the internet where the recipe or process for this sandwich is available, I feel that wikipedia is fufilling its mission of keeping information not otherwise available accessible to anyone who needs it. I also contest OntarioQuizzer's use of the phrase "non-notable".--Indiebass 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wikipedia is a neutral and unbiased compilation of notable, verifiable facts." "A view is generally considered notable if it is potentially information of value or interest in some way to a significant number of people, or to some perspective, or its omission would leave a significant gap in historical human knowledge of a subject." (from WP:8W). I am of the opinion that the Spanjo is not of interest to a significant number of people; therefore, I refer to it as "non-notable". -- Andy Saunders 19:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally, a Google shows a total of 1 hit for 'spanjo Michigan'; to a site that is only in Google's cache. -- Andy Saunders 21:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indibass, thank you very much for your contribution. I made myself a spango for lunch today and it was amazing! I believe that it would be a slap in the face to vegitarians everywhere if this sandwhich was deleted from record and forever lost to civilization. Andy Saunders seems to be a typical Canadian anti-vegitarianite. Just because it does not have gravy does not mean it is not good. Besides Andy, who made you the sandwich police?!! [Spango-fango]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.211.65.210 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. If it's so good then write it down yourself and share it on your own website, and come back here when it's a common lunch item. Grandmasterka 19:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Spanjo is not of interest to a significant number of people" -OntarioQuizzer. Again: not true. The University of Michigan has the world's largest number of living alumni, more than a few of whom have eaten spanjos. I fail to see why anyone would want to make legitimate information unavailable. As a repository of information, wikipedia should pride itself on making the underserved accessible. Yes, your Funk and Wagnall is going to have a Reuben in it, but the Wikipedia was created for items like the Spanjo. --Indiebass 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Andy Saunders has demonstrated, Wikipedia was not created for such items. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and for completely unconvincing arguments supporting the article. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bugwit -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No convincing argument to keep it. If it's no longer on the menu, and nobody else has ever served it, it's a one-off. --Elkman - (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia convention is "keep", not "do not delete". Remember to sign your posts on talk pages as well. -- Andy Saunders 20:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


keep Thesquire wrote: "As Andy Saunders has demonstrated..." Has he really? Because you say it does that make it so? There are several comments in support of this article, and I wouldn't have created it just so it could be deleted. I would like someone to tell me 1) what is the best thing that could happen by deleting this article and 2) what is the worst thing that could happen by keeping this article. I think you'll find that more information is preferable to deleting something because you don't know what it is. Maybe it makes you afraid. I don't know. What I do know is deleting this article is a blow against the guiding principles that wikipedia was founded on. 

--Indiebass 20:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!!The Spanjo is how I met my husband. You see, I was at the Halfass, trying to decide which sandwich to order, when the guy in front of me ordered a Spanjo. I was thinking about trying the Spanjo myself, but as a poor college student, I was reluctant to spend my money on a sandwich I might not like. I asked the guy in front of me how the Spanjo was, and with his encouragement, I took the plunge. We ended up eating our Spanjos together that afternoon, and 5 years later we got married (and for the record, we had mini Spanjos during the cocktail hour). Every year, we return to Michigan for a football game, and on these trips we are sure to visit the Halfass for a Spanjo at least one time (they still make the sandwich, even though it is not on the official menu). Go Blue! (talk • contribs)

    • KEEP!!! Please tell me how the Spanjo falls into the "indiscriminate collection of information" category - it is NOT a list of frequently asked questions, it is NOT a list of repositories or loosely associated topics, it is NOT a travel guide, it is NOT a memorial, it is NOT news report, it is NOT a genealogical or phonebook entry, it is NOT a directory or resource for conducting business, and it is NOT an instruction manual. Frankly, I really don't understand what all the protesting is about. If someone could provide a calm and rational argument, I would really appreciate it. What is the harm of leaving this page up? Given the large number of posts in a relatively short period of time, this is clearly of interest to a significant number of people. Go Blue! (talk • contribs)
  • Delete oh! my! god! once again, it's always the least likely stuff that ends up being goofily contested on AfD. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adrian, you seem fond of pointing that out. JoshuaZ 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, the absurdity isn't going to appreciate itself. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you could make a much better argument for the Eli Breakfast Sandwich than Spanjo, in that it is served in some variant all over Yale and even has a vegetarian version at the kosher kitchen. (Don't worry, I'm not going to make an article about it.) JoshuaZ 21:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! I am so disappointed in this community right now. Someone can work so hard to *create* something, but you take one keystroke and make it SO easy to *destroy* it. Because you don't understand something you destroy it. This isn't a world I can believe in. You can destroy every last trace of the Spanjo on the Wikipedia, but you can't destroy its LEGACY! ¡Viva el Spanjo! --Indiebass 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I could seriously go for a Spanjo right now... -- Samir ∙ TC 22:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though the arguments to keep are entertaining. Edgar181 23:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds jummy, but I already ate. Eivind 23:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cafeteriacruft (which seems to be a trend lately). dbtfztalk 00:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grandmasterka. -- Krash (Talk) 01:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would like to point out that there does not appear to be a registered user named User:Go Blue!. All comments by the same would seem to originate from 143.231.249.141. Why impersonate a nonexistent user? -- Krash (Talk) 01:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obscure sandwich. I wouldn't order one and given that it is no longer served anywhere in the world, it seems that was the common opinion. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bugwit and others. Non-notable to 99.9% of the population. I could see it as having a brief mention in the University of Michigan article as something unique to the area, but seeing that it no longer exists, that is kind of pointless. -Dawson 02:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! UMich graduate here. happened to stumble across the spanjo article just now. I really hope it is *not* deleted. I can tell you the Spanjo did in fact exist, and also was nutritious as well as delicious. It was still being served when i was there, and the "word" eataspanjo was painted on the ceiling. So, for what it's worth the information is legitimate. Thanks for the reminder! --East Quad ResCollege Grad, class of 99 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.238.8 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 8 March 2006.
  • Weak Keep The notability of the spanjo really needs to be better clarified for this article to live on. Some of you who are voting keep might want to consider going back to the article and helping build it up soon. Kukini 15:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Andy Saunders and all the others. Mallocks 20:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! I'm new to this site (and thus I'm sure that big red box above refers to me) I can't say I'm an expert in all things wiki-related, but I can vouch for the fact that the sandwich in questions does exist. Not only is it surprisingly tasty, it does hold a bit of cultural significance in south central michigan. Point is, while this "information" may only be interesting to a very small sliver of the population, isn't that enough? It's not made up. It's true. And the information itself takes up a whole lot less space that the protests against it. As I said, from someone who is new to wikipedia, I thought this was precisely the place to put information like this, information you couldn't find anywhere else. sixofrock 10:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.252.158 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 9 March 2006[reply]
"information that you can't find anywhere else" easily violates WP's "verifiability" tenet. If you can't find it anywhere else, how can you verify it to ensure that it's actually true? Nobody's done any sort of scholarly work on the Spanjo; Letterman hasn't eaten a Spanjo on his show; it's simply not notable, and if we were to include everything along the same notability level as the Spanjo, Wikipedia would be much too unwieldy and would lose a lot of its credibility. -- Andy Saunders 16:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! OntarioQuizzer, the minimum standard for a newspaper in terms of verification is three independent sources. Including myself, there is at least that on this article, and my guess would be more to come. Please do not tell me you find the standards of the Chicago Tribune, Washington Post and New York Times not stringent enough for you or the Wikipedia. On a personal note, the idea that this article is even being contested is truly ridiculous. --Indiebass 18:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Users saying that it is true doesn't cut it; we need PUBLISHED sources, and it still does nothing for the fact that the Spanjo is not notable for 99.99% of the population. The idea that people with no idea whatsoever about Wikipedia policy are actually trying to find reasons for keeping the article is truly ridiculous, in my opinion. -- Andy Saunders 17:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2) The only verifiable information I could find on the Spanjo is at this link. And it's from Google's cache, because the East Quadrangle Halfway Inn doesn't serve the Spanjo any more. Also, in regard to the standards that newspapers use: A major newspaper wouldn't do a story on a sandwich that some restaurant no longer serves. It wouldn't be notable. Quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of this debate; it sounds like you (Indiebass) are trolling us and trying to provoke a reaction. I predict that when some administrator comes to close this vote, they'll see all the voting from anonymous users and people whose only contribution to Wikipedia is to defend an article on a discontinued sandwich, and they'll close the vote and delete it. --Elkman - (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3) Multiple votes from one user? That's a no-no... --Kinu t/c 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Who is being accused of sock puppetry here?

The Golden/Blue sock puppet award, for sock-puppetry above and beyond the call of duty

Keep Since the Whopper is listed in Wikipedia I think the Spanjo should be included. A delicious sandwich should not be discriminated against simply because it is not served by a national chain. Andy's reply is going to be: "But the Whopper can be verified by published sources and many more people care about the Whopper." Good points Andy, but having eaten a Spanjo myself I must say keep. --Velcroshoe 18:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This User's only edits are to this page. Ryanjunk 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, I just learned about Wikipedia a weak ago. I'm a newbie.--Velcroshoe 19:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comparing a sandwich served at exactly one place for a limited amount of time which has one web link to a food served by an international food chain is simply ridiculous. JoshuaZ 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Andy - it's not inconceivable that more than 600,000 people have enjoyed a Spanjo (Michigan is a huge school), meaning that more than .01% of the population has intimate knowledge of it. Furthermore, let's say that each of those people told one other person about the sandwich in their lifetime. That's 1.2 million people. Are you so stuck up as to deny that 1.2 million people constitutes enough valid sources? --TsarSteve 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This whole discussion amuses me. The reason I say to Keep it are because I love this sandwich and I know that I am not alone in my enjoyment. The "eataspanjo" is an Ann Arbor equivalent to the restaurant chain Steak and Shake's "Takhomasak". It's a local legend of a sandwich. --Velcroshoe 18:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable sandwich. No Guru 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, surely this could at least be relegated to a note on the university's main page, I cannot concieve a good argument for having an entire page devoted to this now non-existant sandwich. Mallocks 20:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion has to go to BJAODN! Also, I found a picture of a Spanjo [28] -- Samir ∙ T C 22:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • MMM-MMM! Now if that doesn't get your mouth watering... um, I mean... no wonder they stopped serving it. --Kinu t/c 08:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable outside the UoM. Stifle 00:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all non-puppet votes above. Hey, AfD is not supposed to make one hungry... Sandstein 17:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my dear sweet lord. Delete as sandwichcruft and close this AfD early per rampant sockpuppeting and WP:SNOW. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the wikibooks cookbook, if that's allowed. Guymontag 21:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki if appropriate. Not even notable within UoM as far as I can tell, Stifle. ~MDD4696 05:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  09:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario games by year[edit]

Okay, taking this straight to AFD, as I know this is going to be controversial. Listcruft. There's already a seperate List of Mario games by system; is there a reason to reorder and duplicate the list? Note that a similar article, List of Dance Dance Revolution games by date is also up for AFD. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same criteria as the above nominated article:

--み使い Mitsukai 19:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Since lists are not sortable, having several (relevant) permutations of the data is in no way bad. "By date" seems a very logical means of structuring, particularly with the branching of games past Mario 1, Mario 2, etc. — Lomn Talk 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lomn. --Allen 00:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This looks like a reasonably good, sorted and annotated list, while categories only sort alphabetically and provide little or no annotation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lomn. Ardric47 03:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft AdamJacobMuller 23:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  09:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jinty[edit]

Delete not notable San Saba 19:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn cruft. No evidence that anyone other than the creator of this article cares. dbtfztalk 21:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn or Merge to the article about the fiction.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.. Nn. No Guru 19:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was common-sense redirect to Moncton High School — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moncton High[edit]

No value as is, title is surely not correct, and the article has only been used for vandalism. -- Egil 19:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  09:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter and Internet conspiracists[edit]

Delete fails the Google Test San Saba 19:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not sure what this one is about. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pn. Edgar181 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no scientific journal publications to support any of this theory- otherwise it is conspriacy-cruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified, unsourced conspiracy cruft. —LrdChaos 05:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr/talk 20:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cars-R-Coffins[edit]

Delete as advertisement. Originally {{prod}}ed the article, but tag was removed without substantial modification to article. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cars are not coffins. 64.192.107.242 23:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Doesn't establish notability (WP:CORP), but perhaps some regional newspapers have written about it and we don't know it. We should give the stub some time to establish notability. --Allen 00:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I may be biased (I own a CRC t-shirt), but the brand is reasonably well known among bike nuts. bikeable (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've seen this at least once, and cars are too coffins!. --Snargle 21:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being from Minneapolis, and a biker, this is a real person/site/place/social phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.87.34 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Stifle 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable corporation. Ifnord 18:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  09:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Realms: Cormyr[edit]

Delete, gamecruft. Microtonal 20:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it links to nothing but a disambig page. If there was enough to warrant it, I'd suggest dropping the POV stuff and merging it into a 'list of persistant world NWN servers' page. -Dawson 20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Cormyr; if we have a list of NWN servers, merge this there. Smerdis of Tlön 21:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  09:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arkanuk Obesh[edit]

Delete as NN or hoax. Google search gets no hits for this term. Page was created by User:Connorx along with Namuh and Latsaoc on March 6th. None of these terms are findable on Google and are not referenced in the articles linked from here either, those being Heaven's Gate (cult) and Aetherius Society. This looks like a hoax to add a non-existent "refined subsection" to these cults, or it is so non-notable that the cults themselves don't know about it. Slowmover 20:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as probable hoax. -- Krash (Talk) 00:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax or else extreme nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable cult. -- Koffieyahoo 09:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax or religion made up one day in school. Weregerbil 18:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  09:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Future Party[edit]

Delete: In line with WP:NFT this article should be deleted. It is about a group of non-notable people at a non-notable school. I have already suggested to the article creator that a public Wiki farm would be a more suitable place for this project. Jpowell 20:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's just a political party for a high school election. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school, and as such, the organization (political party) is non-notable. --lightdarkness (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is seriously stretching WP:NFT to apply it here, but my vote is still delete; fictional political parties created as classroom assignments are educational, but not encyclopedically notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Feldspar. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save This is used as an example of the project at the high school. It is not a real election and the results are decided by the teachers not other student votes. It links to the Da Vinci article so that it is shown how the education works as explained.Furthurmore this is not just something thought up in a school day this is the work of weeks of planning from my teachers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.15.236.254 (talk • contribs) .
Here's a suggestion. Possibly suggest to your teachers that Wikipedia is not their sandbox? Fan1967 03:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  09:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpiece Galactic Detective[edit]

Unreferenced article about a comic, doesn't seem notable. Google doesn't show much. Delete. Grandmasterka 20:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). It is a bit difficult to count the votes here, because the creator first wanted it kept, then said "might as well delete it". One person has called for a redirect, but I don't know where such a list might be. One called for moving this to Wiktionary, something which I think is entirely unworkable. Regarding whether or not this phrase is a neologism, I note that the term has very many Google hits from a variety of websites. My count sets this at something around 6d-3k, and with a debate like this I am not comfortable calling anything else than a no consensus result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trout Bum[edit]

Was nominated for speedy but isn't really a speedy candidate. Was then PRODded, but tag was removed. So I'm bringing it here: it's a non-notable neologism. Please delete it. Angr/talk 20:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn-neologism. I happened across this page before as I saw the user who created it was linking it from different places on Wikipedia, but it didn't occur to me at the time to check it out. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Book published in 1986 by Simon and Schuster, ISBN 0671644130, held in over 300 libraries per Worldcat database. Thatcher131 21:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created it. Angr has been pretty persistent in trying to get it deleted but it really is a notable entry and it does not qualify as a neologism (new concept). I am a professional flyfishing writer and I put this up here because it really is a definitive term in flyfishing. To be a "trout bum" is to be one totally dedicated to the sport. Since Gierach's book debuted the term has entered the entire flyfishing lexicon. The Trout Bum Tournament is even sponsored by Fly Rod and Reel magazine (not the outfit I write for). Googling "trout bum" returns 68,000 hits. The fact that Angr is not aware of the term doesn't mean it isn't viable - this merely speaks to his personal ignorance of it; a problem which would be remedied were it to be included. Zach Matthews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.197.117 (talk • contribs)
Zach, since you may not see this comment if I post it elsewhere, please log into your account when you post, and sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~). Thatcher131 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have you on that. ZachMatthews 21:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is to be kept, it should be moved to trout bum (lowercase). (I'm not moving it myself, though, because I'm not sure how moving a page might affect the deletion process.) Ruakh 21:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there ever a point at which I can know that the entry has been kept or has been deleted? This is such an arbitrary place - almost everything I've done today has been deleted by someone, which tells me either I don't understand the politics of this thing or there is a group out here more willing than me to be vocal. I host a strong website dedicated to improving beginning flyfishers' abilities completely free of charge and I meant to add some content here, but I am beginning to believe it is not worth the effort. ZachMatthews 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to reply on your User Talk page. Thatcher131 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fly fishing terms are probably off the average wikipedian's radar, but 50,000 google hits seems to show that it's reasonably notable. I'd prefer if the article read less like OR, but it's worth having. Night Gyr 21:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is OR? I can certainly correct it. ZachMatthews 22:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OR = original research. Please read No original research. Angr/talk 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a neologism but non-notable? From The Seattle Times, Febuary 7, 2006, Pg. D9, "Having a trout bum around is kind of like having a Labrador retriever around the house, if you don't get them outside regularly, they get squirrelly and start to stink. I needed to air it out. Randal Sumner was on the phone saying the magic words, "Super secret fly, lots of big fish, let's go." About 50 Lexis/Nexis hits in the past 5 years. Thatcher131 01:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So ~10 hits per year? That sounds not notable to me. At least when compared to other neologisms like Dittohead or Chindia or Dubbya. -- Krash (Talk) 01:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May as well delete it. This isn't worth trying to convince a bunch of people over, especially non-fishermen. Please delete it; Wikipedia clearly isn't as open as it seemed.ZachMatthews 01:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it's notable, (and it seems it is) then what's the big deal? What good comes from deleting it? Homestarmy 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to Wiktionary. Nothing more than a phrase. J.J.Sagnella 16:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think this would be better served as an article on the book with a note on the phrase, rather than the other way round. Mallocks 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Its just a slang term. Redirect to proper slang list. Tutmosis 14:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism and author's request. Ifnord 18:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have fished from Maine to California and never heard this neologism nor I have seen the magazine mentioned in the the link sold anywhere. I don't doubt it exists just that it's not notable enough for an encyclopedia.--71.31.40.206 02:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was:Speedy Deleted as an empty article. --InShaneee 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National_Police_of_Iran[edit]

Delete empty article with only an external link. Mahanchian 21:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under CSD A1. Tagged. ...Scott5114 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  09:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shahab_Habibi[edit]

Delete not notable person. Mahanchian 21:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was already redirected to Judicial tyranny; if anyone wants to de-POV that and merge it with Judicial activism, that's good too. Angr/talk 22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial Tyranny[edit]

Appears to be a POV duplication of judicial activism. Not certain enough of this to {{prod}} it, brought it here from NP Patrol for consensus. Hynca-Hooley 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete highly POV, all useful material is already covered in judicial activism. JoshuaZ 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article and even the title itself are irretrievably POV. As JohuaZ says, the useful material is already elsewhere. Nothing to salvage here. Fan1967 23:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or if anyone can find something worthwhile, merge. Edgar181 23:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in different form (please review). A different form of this article was created in response to a deletion proposal last year, but despite the "keep" vote the closing administrator, with no explanation, effectively deleted the more valid article in favor of redirection. Judge Magney 03:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My reading of Judicial tyranny (small t) is like my reading of the one with the capital T. It's still awfully POV. I would recommend having both versions redirect to judicial activism, and if someone wants to add a paragraph there explaining the use of this particular term, it would be more appropriate there, within that context. Fan1967 16:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redirect, and -POV. Stifle 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  08:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thefishbowl.com[edit]

  • Delete. Website spam. If this site is judged sufficiently notable to Keep, article needs significant rewriting. Hynca-Hooley 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Advertising. [Added "delete" vote to nominator's argument above.]Slowmover 23:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable Edgar181 23:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promotional, no evidence of notability. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do not meet WP:WEB --MaNeMeBasat 16:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  08:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bucket Sitter[edit]

Non-notable protologism featuring a whopping 116 Google hits. Prodded but contested by anon. FCYTravis 22:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  08:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C9C[edit]

Band does not at face value pass WP:MUSIC, but overall notability debatable. Prod removed by original author. Hynca-Hooley 22:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Band has original concept of no fixed membership. Provides documentation of significant affiliation with Psychic TV, Church of Satan and other artists. lordzatar 22:28, 7 March 2006
  • Delete as nn. Many people have been ordained in the Church of Satan. Doing so does not make you notable. Nor does having no fixed membership. Nor does being associated with someone who is associated with Psychic TV. People actually listening to your music makes you notable. This group doesn't seem to meet minimum standards even for a cult following. Fan1967 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete twice just in case. C9C, The Church of Satan, Genesis P-Orridge, and Ken Gage are completely fictional entities. If a tree falls in the woods and not enough people actually hear it, we can pretend it was an aluminum umbrella stand, but document it as a green mouse. Fan1966 05:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The above entry was actually entered by 68.253.203.197 (contribs) at 03:49, 8 March 2006. The Fan1966 signature is forged. I'm going to take a wild guess that somebody didn't like my comment. Fan1967 04:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was the article has been Speedy deleted by User:Zoe, I am noting it here AJR | Talk 22:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GamingReich[edit]

non-notable website that was only created today according to the article. Delete Oldelpaso 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Merge/withdrawn by nominator --Obli (Talk)? 21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shroud Loot System (SLS)[edit]

This belongs on a wold of warcraft/MMORPG wiki, it's far too gamecrufty for the general interest, having endured a short but educational world of warcraft career, myself, I know that 'custom' (i.e. not hardwired into the software) loot systems do exist, but this one is just an attempt by a clan to make their name stick to that system. It's also only got one Google hit. --Obli (Talk)? 22:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


From the Author:

Systems like DKP (Point System) exist in this wiki already as do other MMORPG-specific terms, some of which are very specfic to various games (see Leeroy Jenkins). I will willingly remove the guild reference from the title if that is the issue, but again, I was following the format of the DKP article which refers to the guild which created it. I could certainly add this section to the DKP system, but I feel that it is an inherently different system and it isn't a variant.

I've also thought about making a more general "loot systems" article which would be more general and attempt to place the variant systems such as this into a context for the reader and would make a place for other newer variants to add sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceparrot (talk • contribs)

  • I actually tried looking for an article on loot systems, seems like you knew where to look :) I actually think a more generalized article for loot systems, maybe loot (MMORPG) would be better, Id' be for it if you moved DKP (Point System) to that name and merged your existing article, seems to me that peolpe will find it easier that way. --Obli (Talk)? 22:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I will do that instead, I think it will be of greater use and be more general to any MMORPG, but still allow to give credit to the "inventors" of certain systems. Iceparrot 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • All right, get to work :) --Obli (Talk)? 21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youngblood Playwrights Group

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. KnowledgeOfSelf 15:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rap is not music[edit]

Is it true that rap is not music? If it's true, then this article should be kept otherwise it should be deleted. StarTrek 22:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is true that rap is indeed not music, but this article needs to be cleaned up. TreeFrogz 22:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the dictionary might not define rap as music, it is commonly referred to as music. Science3456 22:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is currently a very highly opinionated position paper, which is not encyclopedic. Any attempt to approach a neutral point of view presupposes the article's fundamental precept (as summarised by its title) is a prominent, notable or significant viewpoint. There is no verifiable evidence for this, so delete. Sliggy 22:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sliggy. -Big Smooth 22:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with hip hop and state that "rap is not a kind of music" is an opinion that is held by some people. Gardgate 22:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV, although I do concur... Sandstein 22:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as opinion piece, OR, and POV. Though I'm inclined to agree with the viewpoint, it has no place here. Fan1967 22:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BALLS. Utter closed-minded nonsense. bikeable (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is inherently POV. Also, music stores like Sam Goody and Best Buy stock rap CDs intermixed with the rest of the music CDs, and the music industry gives awards to rappers. Also, if you pirate a rap CD, the music industry will come after you. Hence, it qualifies as music, even if played at volumes that approximate the Richter scale. --Elkman - (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All opinion, without a decent title. If a piece on the arguments relating to the content is deemed necessary, the page should be something like "arguments concerning the musicology of rap" with both sides of the argument represented. R.braithwaite 23:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR and POV. --Allen 23:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sliggy. Sir E. D. W. Lynch 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The title is unfixable POV. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the article is correct, it isn't encyclopaedic. --Rory096 00:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy DeleteNo sources, and Blantant POV. --Z.Spy 01:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Z.spy JoshuaZ 03:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR, POV. I agree with it though.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV rant probably sparked by the rap song winning the Oscar the other night. ;-) 23skidoo 04:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speedily as possible. Note that I have deleted various duplicates at names like Rap is crap etc. FreplySpang (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the "attack page" criterion apply to groups as well as individuals? If so, I think this could be speedied on that basis. --Allen 01:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete as it has been transwikied.  (aeropagitica)  08:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus[edit]

Is a source document, transwiki was requested to Wikisource. Article has already been transwiki'd to Wikisource [29]. Should be deleted.

  • Delete if it has been transwikied Edgar181 23:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Transwikied here. Metta Bubble 01:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already transwikied correctly. Stifle 00:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both. Angr/talk 22:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Splace[edit]

  • Delete. I am afd'ing this because it is utterly baffling (not clear at all), does not appear to me encyclopedic in its current form, and author has removed cleanup & context tags without making significant improvements to article. Please inform me if this is not felt to be an appropriate application of the AfD process. Hynca-Hooley 22:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This word exists on this website [30] and apparently nowhere else. The article was created by Splace who appears to be the website creator/owner/whatever. Delete as vanity page and NN. [Note: I added "delete" vote to nominator's argument above.] Slowmover 22:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it considered vain to propose an entry for word which resolves a complex concept which is highly relevant to the discourses of user interface, online experiences and has been alluded to without proper nomenclature by a number of prominent thinkers and philosophers... I am the author of the word, yes and there is a web destination where relevant works are posted. Sorry for the deletion of the code heading.. first time around it appeared I was not certain what served and I'm figuring this discussion mode exists... There is plenty of writings I am stitching into the text (se new links : Bergson, Deleuze, etc.) The article was flagged for deletion withing minutes of my first posting where I had no links.

Thanks for your reply slowmower. Ten years ago these =were= neologisms. As we write, these words and notions are becoming relevant and common language in accademic arena as well as in the sofware development realm, especially online community development. I strongly believe that they should be available for reference both for a historical context POV as well as for their relevance to the discourses currently informing such creative areas. As an example: what Bergson believed was to be not representable (the motion of duration) became allegorized by the advent of film. Interactive media is opening even more access to notions such at that one as common experiences which can (and need) to be reffered to by a single term. in this case (splace and platzgeist, which mean the same but in diferent languages) do exactly that, they refer to an otherwise unrepresentable notion (the sense of place, as it relates to time and experience) in an interactive environment. To support these argument, I have made references to the thinkers who motivated the creation of such interactive (diegetic) space, and consequently the words to describe them. As online community sofwares evolve to the next phase, this will be even more relevant to describe succintly. "Wiki" was once, not too long ago, a neologism. Respectfuly yours, Splace

  • Delete Basically nobody uses this word right now. WP is not a crystal ball to predict neologisms which "are becoming relevant" or "will be even more relevant". Fan1967 23:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you mean nobody you know? the word 'Zeitgeist' is widely known, 'Platzgeist' has been taking traction because the notions online media affords and it's logical derivation from Hegel's term 'Zeitgeist'. Splace

Platzgeist returns 51 Google hits, Zeitgeist returns 18,100,000. Come back when those two figures are closer to equal. Hynca-Hooley 23:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hynca-Hooley, that is a very good point, however, I must disagree with you, I am making a qualitative contribution, not one based on a quantitative gage. When did someone determine that the word "Bling" had reached the tipping point in order to deem it a signifier to all things 'Hip-Hop'? I agree there must be critical mass, but 'splace' and 'bling' differ qualitatively in that their usage is relevant to demographies which by their very nature will produce wide disparity in their numbers. I am talking accademia and sofware developers... not pop culture. I assumed that these kinds of reviews would be done by peers based on the relevance of the actual content contributed, not purely on speculatons of partially evident external factors. No one so far is going to the meat of what I posted to deem it 'deletable'. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers  ;) cheers, Splace

  • Delete. splace.net seems to be a small jewelry retailer, which is not enough of a reputable source to vouch for the notability of this neologism. --Allen 00:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allen, Thanks for the diligent research. Again, non of this addresses the meaning and philosophical context of the words presented in the article. Tomorrow a restaurant chain could adopt the name and still that is irrelevant to the actual meaning of the word. Amazon is a river in South America, that a retail bookseller addopted that word as a name to do business, does not make the word more or less relevant in terms of it's original meaning. Is anyone here versant in the ideas presented in the article? That would make for a fairer scrutiny than what so far appears to be knee-jerk reactionary reviews to what so far is an unfamiliar word to some, presented by a newcomer. Respectfuly and simply curious. Splace

Thanks for your response. As far as I can tell, the website is run by the person who coined the word, so it doesn't seem quite like Amazon.com. Also, if it weren't for the website, I would say that the article was original research, which Wikipedia discourages. --Allen 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but "unfamiliar to some" is not exactly accurate. The relevant truth is: "unfamiliar to just about everyone in the world." Keep working on getting people to adopt it. When you've had some success, feel free to try again here. Fan1967 02:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Krash, thank you for poiting the already-mentioned out :) I agree that 'vanity' clause seems to apply given the user name I chose for these sessions, clearly this could be solved easily if I sign in with a different username. As I explained above, the terms are no longer neo-logisms, and to quote from one of the links you posted, this is what is the case for my contributions:

"In the Wikipedia namespace, for example, the test should obviously be whether a word or phrase is useful for discussing Wikipedia, not whether the word is sufficiently widespread outside Wikipedia."

Please address the content and its relevance to the contextual references and meaning involved, not just the circumventing proto-evidence. Thank you. Splace

If I understand you correctly, you argue that these are not neologisms because they're ten years old. However, if, after ten years, practically nobody but you is using them, they would have to be described as a failed attempt at neologism. Nice try, though. Fan1967 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan-1976, thank you for your concern about my state of solitude. Out of the 69,500 google results for the word 'splace', I have culed 3 instances where profesionsls in a variety of fields are grapling with the meaning of the word, some of which will inform my further cleaning of the article:

1_A scholar in psychiatry: 

Sitzfleisch 2: The 'Platzgeist' and Cognitive Environmental Psychology
KURT SALZINGER

http://www.apa.org/books/4316571t.html

2_ An artist in Belfast: http://www.recirca.com/reviews/2005/theosims/ts.shtml

3_ A productivity consultant in England: http://www.predaptive.com/the_third_splace.htm

    • There's a little problem on the google hits, as the overwhelming majority lead to things like "JoysPlace" or "RosesPlace". Occurrences of "splace" as a standalone word are few and far between. Where the word does exist (like your items 2 and 3 above) there is nothing to tie it to Schnaas or platzgeist, and no indication that these sites have any definition of the word in common with each other or with you. Looks like these people also combined "space" and "place" but there's nothing there to attribute the word to any source other than the authors of those sites. Fan1967 15:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In deed, Fan-1976, the bulk in the search results are typos but as I pointed above, the merit of the entry lies not on the quantitative but the qualitative value and relevance to the meaning of both 'splace' and 'platzgeist' they both are with out a doubt a needed modern terms for the ancient (Genius loci). I just ordered the book by Mr. Salzinger and will agregate his uses in the Psychoanalitic realm to these entries. Splace

  • Sorry, but the crux of the matter is that nobody uses these words, and therefore they have no place here. You bring up words like "bling" and "wiki" which were once neologisms but are now accepted; your words have not reached that status yet, if in fact they ever will. I fear you misunderstood the point about the "Wikipedia namespace". There are terms commonly used in WP discussions, when talking about WP, that are not normally used elsewhere. "Cruft" is such a word. "Splace" is not. I am not one of the admins who will ultimately decide whether this entry stays or goes, but I would be very surprised to see it stay. Fan1967 21:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan-1976, I certainly appreciate your investment in this particular entry attempt. From my end at least I can say I am trying. I did however expect a bit more of the thoroughness you lent to the matter from other posters, if anything to experience the 'constructive' nature of this tool for the documentation of lexicon. I was surprissed by the blanket burocratic approact in the review so far, simply quoting potential broken rules as opposed to engaging in the potentiality of the project, despite it's outcome. I still strongly believe there is merit to this entry even if it needs to be cleaned up substantially, which I will endeavor to do over time, an investment I'll seemingly have to go at alone since there seem to be few or none true passionate lexicographers in this crowd... at least so far. Cheers to you! Splace

  • I'm sorry, but the rules aren't that complicated. A word that nobody uses doesn't get an entry, no matter how much you like it, no matter how valuable you think it could be if people would use it. It's as simple as that. These terms have never caught on with anybody. I doubt they ever will. If they ever do, feel free to relist them, but I suspect you'll find them gone from here in a few days. Fan1967 01:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 06:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiked (novel)[edit]

A novel printed by Xlibris (a print-on-demand publisher) with the only evidence of notability offered being an interview with the author in a 2-page library newsletter. Malundi (talk · contribs) has worked on very few articles, mostly the article for the author, C.J. Beck (which notes how his student newspaper won a Student Newspaper of the Year Award in 1968 under his editorship, and which also plugs "the adventure thriller Spiked") and the article for Beck's other novel, Sizzle. Malundi also keeps removing tags requesting cleanup ([31], [32]). -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable reference to fictional work ... but "An ex-White House correspondent and his Zulu partner in Apartheid-era Johannesburg, track down a cannon satellite launcher to Namibia" ? That's, erm, different. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, vanity.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah, if this is a self-published book, it has a large number of Googles, doesn't it? 2200 for my search of Spiked + "C.J. Beck". My attention was drawn to this debate by a premature request for review already posted at DRV... persistent editor, that. Xoloz 20:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominate Beck may not be Balzac, who you'll remember owned his own printing press, but his readers seem to endorse if their comments at various on-line booksellers are to be believed. National Union of Journalists' award supports credentials for a book with journalist protagonists. "Different?" Check Gerald Bull entry and then see if his science has been developed much since his death or taken up in fiction. As for comment "Malundi also keeps removing tags requesting cleanup", sorry, but that was only once, and only after I supplied the request for a citation. By all means clean up, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Malundi 8 March 2006
  • Has anyone proposing deletion read the book? Rationale appears to be based on Wikipedia procedure and emerging culture rather than content. A case of the tail wagging the dog? When one member alludes to Malundi's small number of contributions it just becomes plain silly. I believe if they read the book they would see its value. This book is a sound contribution to the discussion on Apartheid-era South Africa, inner workings of journalism and a ballistics science still-born since Gerald Bull's assassination. On-line bookseller reviews are supportive. I appreciate we need to ensure conformity with Wikipedia style but let's not do it at the expense of substance. Nominated by Malundi 8 March 2006 comment moved from AfD talk page
    • When "one member" (which happens to be myself) alludes to your small number of contributions, it is because members with small numbers of contributions frequently don't fully understand what Wikipedia is, what it is for and what it isn't for. (Not to mention that members with small numbers of contributions, all of which revolve around one particular subject or person -- for instance, a self-published author -- often look like they're trying to promote that subject or person.) For instance, they may mistakenly think that the issue is whether the subject is good, and try to convince us that the subject is good -- for instance, that "if they read the book they would see its value". By the way, you removed cleanup tags not once, but twice, and the second time, when you "supplied the request for a citation", it was not a satisfactory citation; it was merely a link to a library newsletter's interview with the author, and nothing in the interview supports the claim that "Spiked, advances the discussion and much like the work of Tom Clancy and Michael Crichton is sufficiently technical to provide starting points for policy makers and scientists." -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-published book by an author who seems hell-bent on promoting it. Just zis Guy you know? 23:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the compliments from Antaeus and Guy implying I'm the author. On what do you base that a self-published book is somehow inferior or that I am the author? There are many of us in our group who enjoyed reading this book. Also there are many good reviews on Amazon,B&N, Borders etc., Yet none of you cite a credible rationale for deletion. Just assumptions. By the way, the "library" you offhandedly refer to is the American Library Association. Every one has to start somewhere with Wikipedia and beginners will make errors. Maybe I should return to reading a good book. Malundi 8 March 2006
    • Amazon reviews are not objective and are vulnerable to manipulation (and five of them are anonymous). I did not say you are the author, only that the author seems hell-bent on self-promotion. The credible rationale for deletion is that it is a self-published book. Yes, everyone has to start somewhere - and that somewhere is not Wikipedia. Just zis Guy you know? 00:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not the place to change that. Postdlf 00:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning toward delete for now because I'm not sure how to assess the notability of this, but I would like to say that I don't think self-published books are non-notable in principle. I think we should stick with the notability criterion here and not get side-tracked into discussing motives or media. If it's notable, it's notable; if Malundi wants it kept, he should supply evidence of the book's importance, which is what the cleanup tags were asking for in the first place. · rodii · 01:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. I have five volumes of Robert Gunther's self-published "Early Science in Oxford" which was self-published but is one of the leading authorities on Robert Hooke and is cited by Margaret 'Espinasse in her biography of Hooke (it's actually 'Espinasse's copy I have). If he was not also the founder and first curator of the Museum of Science at Oxford I still strongly doubt that we would have an article on Robert Gunther on the strength of this book, and we do not have an article on the book at all even though it is cited in other books (see [33]). I think a self-published book has a massive hill to climb; any really successful ones are likely to be taken on by a mainstream publisher long before the question of encyclopaedic notability comes about. Just zis Guy you know? 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with JzG and Zoe. "Massive hill to climb" sounds about right--I just want to be clear that "self-published" is not in itself assurance of non-notability. · rodii · 00:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Adrian. Stifle 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 23:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States shopping malls by state[edit]

List of unencyclopedic lists (and unencyclopedic lists). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. Also included are the lists of shopping malls in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont, Delete all. Fightindaman 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - these would work better as a categories. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 23:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just a quick note, even if you like the idea of the list, there already exists a list of notable shopping malls in the US by state at List of shopping malls in the United States. Fightindaman 23:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fightindaman and Stevietheman. Nothing against shopping malls being here, but categories and the list that was already there are enough to organize them. --Allen 00:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Quite indiscriminate. List of shopping malls in the United States serves its purpose very well, by itself. -- Krash (Talk) 00:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with List of shopping malls in the United States. Kappa 00:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a list of lists. Please see Wikipedia:Listcruft. Stifle 00:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete profoundly useless information. Denni ☯ 02:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I'm biased since I created most of these. However, User:Coolcaesar has been deleting all malls that he doesn't think are notable enough (which, IMO, borders on ownership) from List of shopping malls in the United States, over several objections. Until all these malls have articles, the lists should stay, however, they can be merged if there is a guarantee they will not be deleted. Kirjtc2 02:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we delete these lists, then we might as well delete a whole bunch of other lists that are just as "unencyclopedic." These do have encyclopedic value. bob rulz 06:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since these lists can handle redlinks when categories cannot. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: But do we really need lists of non-notable red links? If the mall is notable then the list I mentioned above can handle it before it's written. Fightindaman 17:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Fightindaman's comment just preceeding. Mallocks 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think it is more effective to convince Coolcaesar of the growing consensus that the requirements for "notability" be broadened than to create a fork that has tons of red links. In my opinion, notability does not have to be national or statewide, but can also be in a regional or metropolitan sense, as well as being historically notable due to past activity on the site. I am adding some malls in the California section, asserting their notability, in hopes that I can reach a consensus that these malls are indeed notable. Calwatch 04:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this pointless list. Arbusto 09:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has little or no value. No Guru 19:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; no reason to delete. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Actually, a reason was given for deletion. A reason was also presented as for why they should be kept. Perhaps instead of simply saying "no reason" you could address one of the reasons presented for either side. Fightindaman 06:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons I have already stated at Talk:List of shopping malls and Talk:List of shopping malls in the United States.--Coolcaesar 06:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with category. If all these red links do become articles, we can add them to the category. A list is unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 10:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this list is useful because it points out some missing articles. --Snargle 21:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per bob rulz's first sentence. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I point to WP:CORP, which gives an example of a list of Wal-Marts in Germany as being informative enough for an article (not that there is one on here). A list of malls in my opinion is more valuable than a list of Wal-Marts, because malls are important gathering places and cultural icons in their communities, as opposed to a bland generic Wal-Mart. A category wouldn't suffice because not all major malls have articles yet. I would have no problems with a merge though. Kirjtc2 02:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. List shows us what we got and what we need to do. No reason to get rid of it that I can see. -- JJay 02:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Also create a category for it as categories and lists do different jobs Jcuk 22:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  08:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True democracy[edit]

This term is not substantiated as an encyclopedic term and the article's author has refused to provide references. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 23:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Angr/talk 20:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M.O.V.E.R, Jerome hasler, Don Ray[edit]

Note to admin - Delete votes are being removed from this AfD by new/anon users.


Delete. Unverified and probably unverifiable. Article admits little notability outside locality even if true. Hynca-Hooley 23:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A gang emerging from the ashes of McCarthyism in Wiltshire?? Sounds like a prime BJAODN candidate to me. Hairy Dude 00:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverified. No record of their leader Jerome C. Hasler anywhere in google. Monkeyman(talk) 00:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable SailorfromNH 01:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Malmesbury. Interesting content in the context of the town. What do other voters think about this suggestion? Metta Bubble 01:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Hbackman 02:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Google will yield no results on this. The closest I found was this which makes no mention of the article's subject. The only way to verify this I suppose is to ask someone who resided in the town at the time period this gang was said to be active. - 127.*.*.1 03:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment: Jerome hasler was just created, and should probably share the same fate as this article Henrik 10:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a former resident of Malmesbury, I have the unfortunate memories of knowing my father, who was (for a very short time) a member of the Mover organisation, and whenever I mention this to some of my closest friends who reside in Bath - they have no knowledge of this so called 'gang' - even though I do not believe that the Movers were bad people. Therefore, without knowing what my father did, being in as much of the dark as apparently the rest of England, I cannot pass judgement that this is a fake article - which apparently everyone else can do despite having NO knowledge about it. I know it was a prominent gang, and am pleased that it has finally gotten the recognition somewhere, and I hope that eventually the whole truth can be uncovered. There, I'll get off of my soapbox now User: Tyres March 8th 2006
User:Tyres first post. You get the point exactly with the statement "which apparently everyone else can do despite having NO knowledge about it", wikipedia has a policy of verifiability (WP:V), the fact that no one has any knowledge of it is exactly the reason it has no place in Wikipedia. --pgk(talk) 12:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. --pgk(talk) 12:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Isn't the reason why Wikipedia started so people COULD find out about subjects? If you already have knowledge on the subject, why would you want to read up on it? User: Tyres March 8th 2006 12:55p.m
You may only vote once, but feel free to comment. Henrik 13:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I'm not sure I agree with the general position wikipedia has on notability but it would not be good if we are the first to publish on this topic. - 127.*.*.1 19:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its disrespect of the highest order to suggest that J.C. Hasler didn't exsist. you should be ashamed of your naivety wikipedia administrative team. i am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain milkybar (talk • contribs)

In good faith, it was not nice to edit other people's votes. Such tactics are disrespective to the afd process. You have a chance to prove he exists, that is what this page is for. I suggest you use the time to gather information, such as public records and such. - 127.*.*.1 19:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i do apologise, im sorry i was unaware of said etiquette surrounding afd items etc. yeh, public records, where do you get them and how do you put them wikipedia.com?!! again im sorry as this entry is editing etc. so yeh, ill try and find out some stuff on him. but enough people over here know about the guy! but i appreciate word of mouth isnt always truth, except in this case -naturally! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.250.209 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I resent that Jerome C Hasler and his M.O.V.E.R gang are being questioned. Earlier I read an article name Don Ray, which is clear evidence that he and his gang existed. Wikipedia should be ashamed that it questions things of this nature. People need to know what foul, awful, unwashed, discusting, discraceful, horrific, mentally disturbed, animals that were the M.O.V.E.R gang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don ray (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Don Ray provides no additional proof. It is along the lines of Jerome hasler. I suggest adding the article to this AfD -- I don't know how to do that, though. Hbackman 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a little concerned about all of the new users/IPs who have suddenly popped up around here to vote Keep. All of them appeared on March 7 or 8, all of them have very few edits, and all of them have only edited pages relating to M.O.V.E.R. or this AfD. See: Tyres' contributions Captain milkybar's contributions 80.176.250.209's contributions Don ray's contributions. These four are the only ones who have suggested that the article should not be deleted. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Hbackman 23:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the admins patrolling the AfDs have seen this behavior a million times. Don't sweat it, they know. Monkeyman(talk) 23:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see, so basically when four people decide to have a discussion about why an article shouldn't be deleted - everyone instantly assumes that they are all liers/the same person. That's one hell of a trusting assumption. I guess that you clearly know me personally and all these other people that are posting their disagreement with the articles in question that are up for deletion. So what, I might be a new member! Let it go, I've still got just as much of a voice on this site as anyone, and I still have an opinion. It's unfair to assume that just because we disagree with you, we're lieing. I agree with the person who posted down there, learn about social skills — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.68.226 (talk • contribs)
    • Please be civil. I apologize for any offence, but you must admit that it's a suspicious coincidence when four different people come onto Wikipedia at almost the same time, only edit articles related to one particular group, and are the only ones on an AfD about that group saying that the article should be kept. I'm not attacking you because you disagree with me. It is not a life-or-death question to me whether or not these articles are kept. Hbackman 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My freaking god you guys must have a lot of time on your hands. Seriously have you guys ever considered getting lives and not questioning everything that isn't in your nerdy little heads. You guys have some terrible problems to read so much into things, I suggest you get some help. You make me sick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.220.149 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep whether you guys delete this article or not, the truth about the M.O.V.E.R gang should be known. it is valuble history from a rural town. part of a legacy they left behind. i think we should honour that legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.220.149 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep this piece of township memory is little known outside of Malmesbury. but it is truth, i dont know where records can be found. but i know and so do many people around malmesbury that this gang is truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.220.149 (talk • contribs)
    • Please do not vote twice. You're welcome to continue discussing the article, however. Thanks. Hbackman 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, regardless of someones personal views Wiki is an Encyclopedia and should have articles you would expect to find in a General Purpose Encyclopedia...this doesn't rank there. If you wish to have MOVER 'known', start a blog for free at blogger.com or the like. KsprayDad
  • Keep I originate from the wiltshire area and can confirm the existence of jerome c. hasler and his gang. I have heard about their work and believe it to be 100% true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.220.149 (talk • contribs)
    • Please don't vote more than once. You're welcome to continue discussing the article, however. Thanks. Hbackman 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I agree with KsprayDad. --MaNeMeBasat 15:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced, noting that nobody who has voted to keep has provided any information that can verify this other than "I've heard of them." WP:V applies, at the least. --Kinu t/c 17:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Errrr....excuse me, why is the article Don Ray up for deletion? And also why the hell is it being added to M.O.V.E.R delete page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don ray (talk • contribs) . please sign your posts.
    • Whether M.O.V.E.R. is deleted or kept, it follows that pages about people who are only notable in that they are M.O.V.E.R. members (such as Don Ray) should be subject to the same decision. Putting them all up on the same AfD simplifies the matter and ensures that the same debate doesn't take place on multiple pages. Hbackman 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MOVER and Jerome hasler per 86.134.220.149 ("this piece of township memory is little known outside of Malmesbury. but it is truth, i dont know where records can be found" implies not notable or verifiable). Userfy Don Ray to User:Don ray. Stifle 00:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i was a former resident of malmsbury- and one silent night when the moonlight was shining through my blinds- a shadow was forecast over my torso-and a large man hoisting a gun threatened to pump 15 lead slugs into my face. He said that if i did not leave i would be sleeping with the fishes. He appeared to carry a large a large bucket of ADES, i then jumped from my bed, grabbed my packed suitcase ( which mysteriously was already packed for me)and i ran into the night riding a buffalo. I am now 94 years old and i am writing this from my death bed, i would like this article to be kept in memory of my horrificly painful ordeal. i would choose to keep my identity unexposec but i will remain under the nickname of big man has — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.214.198 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_7&oldid=1116878669"