< March 10 March 12 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was semi-speedy delete. – Steel 13:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Over the Hedge 2 characters[edit]

List of Over the Hedge 2 characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is pure speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. DreamWorks has not announced anything about a sequel to Over the Hedge yet. FMAFan1990 04:44, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete the list. There has been some dissent that a category would be too hard to define; this discussion, if someone wants to follow it through, should take place in the appropriate venue, which isn't AfD.

Noting the large amount of support in turning this listed into a category, I will be happy to restore this article temporarily in userspace for any user (in good standing, ie. who will not simply move it back to mainspace) who wishes to go through the list and add an appropriate category. Please contact me on my user talk page, linking to this discussion, or if I'm busy to any other administrator (and point to this comment). This is especially directed at TonyTheTiger (who noted below a request to do this); please ask when you're absolutely ready to categorise it immediately, to avoid a deleted article hanging around in userspace forever. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of diss songs[edit]

List of diss songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I feel it may have been too soon for another AfD (the first one was at the end of February), but the article was recently prod'ed and while I don't care much either way about the topic, I didn't think a prod was the way to go. I'm Neutral on this discussion. JuJube 00:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, weak delete. There is so much information on the page detailing numerous songs that I can't simply say "get rid of it." Of course there's no ignoring the fact that it violates policy.--NPswimdude500 01:09, 12 March 2007 (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 was speedy keep. Closing per WP:DPR as the nominator has decided to withdrawn the AfD.--TBCΦtalk? 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cronos (Robot)[edit]

Cronos (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WITHDRAW AFD Given the emerging consensus here, I will be WP:BOLD and start merging and redirecting the articles together. The new page can be seen here List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK) (in progress) EliminatorJR Talk 17:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, an AfD tried to delete a number of articles about individual robots from the UK series of Robot Wars. Result was No Consensus, as it was thought some had notability (i.e. winners of series). Another AfD was suggested with a smaller batch of more obviously less notable robots. Today, many more articles have been created by a new user; these articles are often unsourced, have no context, or need rewriting. Some are about robots which fought one single bout and lost, never to be seen again. I would've thought using the 'reality show contestant' theory, these are therefore non-notable. This is a small batch to begin with, more (there are a lot) will be nominated if this AfD decides on deletion. (Or alternatively, if the decision is Redirect I will redirect all the non-notable ones in one go).

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Rick (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IG-88 (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dome (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

EliminatorJR Talk 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Which brings up another point - there are no dab page entries for a lot of these articles either. EliminatorJR Talk 01:52, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 21:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mesut Kurtis[edit]

Mesut Kurtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert any criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. He appears to only have one album and there is no reference to any songs charting or references for significant media coverage or national tours. Nv8200p talk 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nick—Contact/Contribs 00:30, 11 March 2007 (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 was speedy deleted as non-notable organization. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Twain Productions[edit]

Mark Twain Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources, this group appears to be a high school club that makes films. I suggest that we delete it unless cited, verifiable content can be added. Right now, I can't tell the jokes from the real content - they list Chuck Norris as a cast member, for example. GTBacchus(talk) 00:45, 11 March 2007 (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 was Keep, obviously. If the article is really bad but on a valid topic, we don't delete it we just remove the crud. User:Reywas92 has volunteered to clean it up. Although I participated in the debate, consensus is as clear as day here and there's no point keeping the debate open any longer. Any further comments should be addressed at improving the article, on Talk:23 (numerology) kingboyk 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23 (numerology)[edit]

23 (numerology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Horribly unreferenced pseudoscience, a similar list of occurrences could probably just as easily be tied to any other number. The WP:LEAD is rambling and speculative, however removing the problem parts would leave it meaningless. Previous attempts to solve the issues with this have either been ineffective or were little more than sweeping it under the carpet (e.g. forking it from 23 (number)). In summary, with the OR and V issues, not to mention the use of weasel terms, this article is now beyond help. Chris cheese whine 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Anyone that may be considering "Keep and cleanup" recommendations shoud check the article and talk history, also read this. It has been to cleanup already, to no avail. Chris cheese whine 01:08, 11 March 2007 (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 was speedied as obvious hoax. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Picker[edit]

David Picker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tried prod, it was removed. Unfortunately it doesn't meet any CSD requirements as notability is claimed, etc and obvious hoaxes don't meet CSD requirements. 1) The Stig in 2002 has previously been revealed as Perry McCarthy. 2) A world class 13 year old race driver would be easily verifiable. As I can't find anything to verify this [1]. 3) The article was started by User:Picker34, probably just some kid making a joke. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2007 (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 was Redirect to Kill Switch...Klick. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-16 12:36Z

Go-Kustom Films[edit]

Go-Kustom Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was created by the owner of the Go-Kustom Films. Notability is not established and sources are not provided. No Opinion at this time. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:35, 11 March 2007 (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 was - Speedy deleted by me as a near-verbatim copy of a webpage that asserts copyright. - Richard Cavell 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Teuber[edit]

Andreas Teuber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page has copyright violation issues which need to be addressed if the page is to survive (see talk page for further discussion). There are also questions as to whether this individual is sufficiently notable. Because the latter question is potentially nuanced, I am moving it from speedy deletion to AfD for community review. I take no stance on the issue. Closing admin: please make sure that copyvio issues are fully dealt with if the article is to be kept; right now it's in a sort of copyright twilight zone with permission from the orginal author but no explicit GFDL release from the original source material. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:36, 11 March 2007 (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 was speedied as nn-bio. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David 'Rat' Pitsock[edit]

David 'Rat' Pitsock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable person. John254 01:42, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete both. Majorly (o rly?) 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Yeshiva High School League[edit]

Metropolitan Yeshiva High School League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These organizations seem rather non notable. AniMate 01:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating Metropolitan Yeshiva High School Hockey League as it is part of this non notable organization. AniMate 02:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Yeshiva High School Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I know Google hits aren't the only yardstick we measure notability by, but I found a total of 18 hits for Metropolitan Yeshiva High School League and a total of 1,740 hits when adding in the Hockey League. AniMate 06:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I've notified all three people who have contributed to the articles. AniMate 06:48, 11 March 2007 (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 was nuke. DS 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan D. Schwartz[edit]

After some serious searching, I can't find anything about this person. He wrote books but I can't find any reference to them. He was a PHD in nuclear engineering but I can't find any papers written by him. He is alleged to have committed suicide in 1973 as a result of Three Mile Island accident but that didn't occur until 1979. Article was written by anonymous author. I suggest hoax or some sort of error. Glendoremus 02:00, 11 March 2007 (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 was Delete. Lexicon (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of communists[edit]

List of communists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete We already have categories that are more suited to listing things like this. There is not a single cited source. The page is just begging to be vandalised (see the edit by User:66.131.228.205, "huh huh let's list our teacher"). AlistairMcMillan 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Because I wasn't clear before, there is already a category to cover this Category:Communists. AlistairMcMillan 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already a very well developed category: Category:Communists. AlistairMcMillan 08:27, 11 March 2007 (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 was Speedy Deleted (A7) by Swatjester (Peripitus (Talk) 10:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

GEWar[edit]

GEWar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable entery. Fails WP:WEB Cman 02:56, 11 March 2007 (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 was Speedy Delete. CSD A7. kingboyk 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hippie Jihad[edit]

The Hippie Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I could find no mention of this band in any reliable internet sources (only ~120 Google hits). According to the article itself, they were formed only last year and are only performing around Knoxville, Tennessee. It therefore seems highly doubtful that they meet WP:MUSIC. Stebbins 03:05, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mambo (swahili)[edit]

Mambo (swahili) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

del Non-english dicdef. Although I am inclined to believe it is a hoax (you know mambo/jambo, mumbo-jumbo...) Shall we have articles about words in all languages of the world? Guten Tag, Konnichi wa, Privetik, Witam panstwo, Zdravstvuyte, Zdorovenki buly, Labas rytas, Terve, Bon giorno, Buna ziua,.... `'mikka 03:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify how it would be used for disambiguation purposes? This could affect my (as yet ungiven) vote. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:59, 12 March 2007 (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 was Speedy keep ~ trialsanderrors 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia[edit]

Wikia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable. Notability insufficient.Rainbowwarrior1976 03:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC) — Rainbowwarrior1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 was Delete Gnangarra 01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising by Westpac[edit]

Advertising by Westpac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing notable about the advertising campaign of a bank MrMonroe 03:09, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 21:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychogenes[edit]

Original research Alex Bakharev 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)d[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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mep Report[edit]

The Mep Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a vanity page for someone's audio blog -- does it even matter? --awh (Talk) 03:43, 11 March 2007 (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 was Speedy Delete per G7 ZsinjTalk 16:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Cow Entertainment[edit]

Wicked Cow Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreated speedily deleted page, this time with a claim of notability and "sources". Problem is that most of the sources are self-published; the one reference from a reliable source contains only one brief quote from the company's owner in an article primarily about Jenna Jameson. Delete as non-notable per WP:CORP. RJASE1 Talk 03:44, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 21:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wäntage USA[edit]

Wäntage USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization per WP:CORP, no evidence of notability. Contested prod. RJASE1 Talk 03:50, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shark in love[edit]

Shark in love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neutral bump from speedy. An article about a hoax; unfortunately most web search results for "Arnold Pointer" are not English. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 04:01Z

  • ...Unless "Michael Scholl" is French for Arnold Pointer... Wavy G 05:14, 11 March 2007 (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 was 'speedied G11 Opabinia regalis 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Malone[edit]

Jo Malone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't know what this is. An advertisement? For what? Anyway, this is not an encyclopedic article. Even if the subject (whatever it is) is notable, I don't believe the article in the current state can be salvaged. A new article on the subject may be started, but the current article, as it stands, is completely useless. Delete. Henrik Ebeltoft 04:09, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of AMC couples[edit]

List of AMC couples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 04:19Z

  • Why not? Not trying to be confrontational here, but could we just put like [[Category:AMC couples]] or something to the relevant articles? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:31, 13 March 2007 (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 was speedied A7 Opabinia regalis 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing With The Sith[edit]

Dancing With The Sith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This doesn't seem notable to me. Mearnhardtfan 04:19, 11 March 2007 (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 was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warren P. McGuirk[edit]

Warren P. McGuirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am listing this article for deletion as I feel the subject of the article is Non-notable - the only thing Warren P. McGuirk is suggested to be notable for is being the dean of a university & having a local stadium named after him. Smells of OR & seems like it was written by someone close to him. If this article can't be deleted, I'd also suggest that maybe it could be merged into a relevant article, such as the stadium or the university. Spawn Man 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Spawn Man 04:35, 11 March 2007 (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 was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 23:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Note

Barbara Schwarz[edit]

Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nomination statement[edit]

Introduction: Barbara Schwarz has already been the subject of three AfD discussions and I do not lightly nor frivolously bring this 4th AfD. I reviewed the previous three AfDs and feel that they were all presented on the dubious false premise argument that the article was written as an “attack piece”. The first two AfDs were brought by Ms. Schwarz herself and the third was brought by User:Steve Dufour at the express request of Ms. Schwarz. (Please see 1st, 2nd, 3rd.) I say "dubious" "false premise" not because I am doubting the nature of the piece in its various versions but because that is a very dubious argument for deletion. An attack piece would be corrected, not deleted, and various actions in that direction have been taken. No, I am bringing this AfD because I believe, in good faith, that this article does not meet Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Notability standards for inclusion. I make arguments for my position below that, I think, were previously either not made or, if touched upon, overshadowed by the nature of the previous discussions; both their focus on a improper argument and the presence of Barbara herself. Prior to bringing this AfD I canvassed queried the interested editors at Talk:Barbara Schwarz#AfD (4th Nomination) and found more than adequate interest, in my opinion, to take this to the community for consideration. Thank you for considering my arguments.

Not Notable: Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press but is not notable. Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press to a very limited extent but is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. (edited - ja) Her private search for records for her private reasons gained her mention in a couple of news outlets. That is all. Below is my comment when I solicited comments at Talk:Barbara Schwarz#AfD (4th Nomination):

I am sorry but the more I look at this article, the less it seems to belong here. Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. Sorry, but lots of people are mentioned in the papers. They are not notable. For instance, I can Google "most parking tickets" most+"parking tickets"[2] and learn a lot about "McMillan Electric Co." reasons for racking up 1,497 ticket worth $74,375 in San Francisco, as covered in some depth by the San Francisco Chronicle (correct & add - ja). Certainly that does not make the firm notable enough for an article here. I could then Google them a bit more and maybe find out that they had some OSHA violations or filed a lawsuit or two. Still does not make them notable. But if a few editors here had a non-notable feud and dislike against "McMillan Electric Co." then they might be able to make an article that almost (but not quite) seems like it belongs here.

Some claim that her Usenet activity somehow contributes to her notability. Her Usenet postings are not notable for either their volume nor their content. There are lots of heavy posters on Usenet and lots of “interesting” material posted. That is not notable in itself and adds little, if anything, to any other notability. In my opinion, the only reason her Usenet activity has any “audience” here is because her postings were in vocal opposition to a small group of “anti-Scientologists” that also happen to be editors here. In my opinion, that very small group has carried their Usenet feud to these pages.

Non-public figure: Ms. Schwarz’ FOIA requests, the basis of any notability claim, were brought as a private person for private reasons. That she got mention in the newspaper for their volume does not automatically make her sufficiently notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. This is clearly and, at best, a “borderline case”. And Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Non-public figures states:

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm".

Ms. Schwarz clearly feels that she is harmed by the existence of this article and has asked for its removal. In a case of a non-public person such as this one, that carries weight for deletion. Thank you --Justanother 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (subsequent corrections and additions shown in strikeout and italics.)[reply]

Section 1[edit]

She has also been the victim of a deprogrammimg attempt by Cyril Vosper, and as such is relevant to discussions about Deprograming#Controversy_and_related_issues.

The Barbara Schwarz article directly relates to these articles: FOIA Deprograming#Controversy_and_related_issues Cyril Vosper related to Taxation in the United States possibly related to USENET Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Overstays

references

  1. Barbara Schwarz, Case No. VFA-0679 07/19/2001
  2. " " " " VFA-0701 11/05/2001
  3. " " " " VFA-0700 11/08/2001
  4. " " " " VFA-0641 01/24/2001
  5. " " " " TFA-0001 12/19/2002
  6. Postal Regulatory Commision FOIA requests 2003
  7. PRC requests 1999
  8. National Credit Union Association 07/11/2000 response to barbara Schwarz's 04/20/2000 request
  9. " 05/10/2000 earlier response to 04/20/2000 request
  10. Department of Energy WIPP FOIA request log
  11. pdf file of Ms. Schwarz's appeal to the Utah Attorney General's Office
  12. Kentuky state Attorney General's office response to Ms Schwarzs 06/22/04 request
  13. Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board minutes 6/23/2004
  14. Rhode Island Department of the Attorney General letter to Ms. Schwarz 6/21/2004
  15. US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 98-1685

Thank you for your attention, Anynobody 00:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Anynobody. However, as court records and so forth these are primary sources. As far as I know no published secondary source has ever said that Barbara was important. Steve Dufour 18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically sources don't say "X is important". We are allowed to use primary sources as well as secondary sources as long as the article is not predominantly sourced from primary sources. When Person B is mentioned as holding the record for Y, we don't need anyone else to say "Person B is important." It's obvious to the casual reader that the world's record holder for Y is a notable person. Wjhonson 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not obvious to me that the world record holder for filing the most Freedom of Information Act requests for information is an important person. Steve Dufour 23:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable is not important. Important is a value judgement that we shouldn't be making. However that she is notable is attested by her 35 thousand plus google hits. Wjhonson 03:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Steve Dufour" will get you lots of Google hits too, but I don't have a WP article. :-) Steve Dufour 04:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2[edit]

I agree that WP:CCC is not immutable, when the community is divided more or less evenly on several AfDs i could see whre WP:CCC is probably of no help. In this case, the previous three AfDs were kept by a pretty solid majority. Please take a moment to look them over before deciding your vote at Talk:Barbara Schwarz. Thanks for your time in participating and commenting. Anynobody 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but Justanother seems to have presented new arguments—albeit most are invalid or faulty—in this AfD--TBCΦtalk? 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, his arguments have been...what you described. It's actually his insistence on pursuing this based on those arguments that has prompted an unsuccessful effort to explain that to him. It is also why I think this boils down to "asking the other parent" as mentioned in WP:CCC, if he had made convincing arguments not brought up in the previous requests I would agree to delete the article. Anynobody 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I actually commented under your comment) Because the three previous AfD votes in this case were strongly rejected. This falls under this part of CCC Anynobody 06:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is requiring you to waste your time with it. Steve Dufour 07:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Justanother is requiring Tilman to be here to support an article he feels notable. Since he feels that way about it, I can appreciate why he might feel this is a waste of his time since he has voted in past nominations. Just as I imagine you must look at the previous AfDs as a waste of time Steve Dufour, since the article was not deleted. Anynobody 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider my efforts to defend someone from unfair attacks and to try to improve WP a waste of time no matter how the vote on this nomination goes. Thanks for thinking of me. Steve Dufour 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Dufour, can you please explain how a well referenced article, excised of personal opinions and POV, based on reliable, factual, and verifiable sources, can be construed as an unfair attack? Thank you. Orsini 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If partly because of my input Barbara's article is now a "a well referenced article, excised of personal opinions and POV, based on reliable, factual, and verifiable sources" I consider my time working on it well spent. Steve Dufour 17:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep changing to strong keep based on expansion of article/sourcing. - Denny 12:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am concerned over this posting, on Jimbo's talk page:
Hello Jimbo. I thought you might want to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination). I have already invoked your comments about newsgroup postings, OR, etc. related to your own article, but I thought you would want to comment directly. This article has been troublesome from inception, and isn't something that belongs on Wikipedia, IMHO. - Crockspot 19:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are so many users with Jimbo's page on their watchlist, a comment like this could be seen as canvassing. Especially "This article has been troublesome from inception, and isn't something that belongs on Wikipedia". Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You left off the "IMHO" from my quote. Since I had already invoked a diff of Jimbo's comments in a reply above, I thought he should be afforded the opportunity to speak directly to this situation. It was my opinion that his previous comments related directly to this article, but I didn't want to speak for him. I suspect he would agree with me, but I could be wrong. And what is wrong with getting as many opinions as possible? The outcome of this AfD does not affect me one bit, as long as the decision is made by a truly broad consensus. - Crockspot 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Crockspot, please consider revising your comment on Jimbo's page to change it to a simple invitation to take a look without including any opinion or characterization of the article or this AfD. Thanks. Stricken, see my comments below. --Justanother 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, albeit reluctantly. - Crockspot 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking the comment, please do as you see fit. --Justanother 20:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any problem with letting Jimbo know about it. If people are watching his talk page they should be mature enough to make up their own minds about it and not believe something just because Crockspot said it. On the other hand, Cman's threat was out of line. Steve Dufour 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apollogize for my harsh words. I think that I should have said something a little bit different. I am fixing it right now to make it less harsh. Cman 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. Your threat would not have been very effective anyway. No one would notice the difference from the normal WP situation. :-) Steve Dufour 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The article is not fair to her. Nobody knows her truly. They try to figure her out via third parties who also never met her. This Wikipedia article is used by others to harass Barbara Schwarz. A bot named Babblestop NOCEM spammed the Wikipedia article within a short time period approx. 600 times and counting to harass her and deny her free speech on Usenet. If the article would be fair, he would not use it as harassment tool. -- Stranger Note: This is StrangerInTown (talk · contribs)'s second edit. — StrangerInTown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC). (UTC).[reply]

If Barbara was really an important person her comments would be welcome here, or so it seems to me. Steve Dufour 06:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Barbara Schwarz has been banned from editing on Wikipedia with good reason. If she does not wish to play by the rules, she does not get to play on the grounds. Orsini 06:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that she does not know how to use sockpuppets well is a clue that she is not an important person. Especially when a big part of her so-called notability is her Internet activity. Steve Dufour 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I voted keep, but I am uncomfortable with the notion of excluding the subject of the article from this discussion. If we have an article about a living person, they should be allowed to comment on its talk page as well, even if they are permanently banned from the rest of the encyclopedia. --agr 11:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we could get the Supreme Court to order the clerk to stop taking her appeals? :P Nardman1 10:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nardman1, she is banned from filing noncriminal petitions with the SCOTUS. :-) This sanction is notable as only a handful of people share this status. Jeffpw, if there is a way to stop the abuse of process with this article, please enlighten me how we can do it? The pattern is becoming familiar: pro-scientologist POV pusher removes WP:RS cited material; then begins an edit war on the article and Talk page; then makes false accusations of impropriety to whoever restored the cited material; then frivolous complaints are made to the WP:BLPN; then same on Jimbo Wales' Talk page, and then the inevitable AfD. Tedious, isn't it? Orsini 11:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Orsini, if it is so notable, where are the articles on the others "banned from filing noncriminal petitions with the SCOTUS"? Wow, Orsini, that sounds like a great way for you to contribute to this project. Because with your grand total of 12 Mainspace edits in 9 months here, you certainly are overdue. Just what is your function here, Orsini? 'Cause it looks to me like it is disruption and attack. And here you are attacking me with no proof other than your dubious word against my good record here. But I am used to it. So let's just stop the attacks on me and let this AfD run its course, shall we? This is not about me. And I am done boring these good people with responses to attacks by, mainly, you. At least User:Tilman had the good grace to make his vote and bow out (albeit not without the obligatory request that I be blocked for even thinking about an AfD on his Usenet nemesis). You, the other hand, continue to disrupt this process with ill-considered attacks on me. I apologize to everyone here but it is tough to leave these attacks unanswered. I will limit my future responses to attacks to the simple mention that this is not about me, and not even that if possible. I will not further contribute to Orsini's (or anyone's) disruption of this AfD. Thank you. --Justanother 14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - --Justanother, the fact so few people have been similarly dealt with by the SCOTUS does make the subject of the article notable. Sorry; I cannot answer where articles appear for the others banned in a similar way by theSCOTUS; it may be a worthy project for me to embark upon at a future date. Back to topic: Am I disrupting this process? It appears to me this AfD itself is disruptive, as observed by several comments on this page, and my input here is certainly no more disruptive than your own and BabyDweezil's behavior on Talk:Barbara Schwarz. This AfD is flawed and based on many faulty premises, not least your misleading claims of User:Tilman having a COI after he provided reliable citations for sources that displeased you and User:BabyDweezil when you had both demanded them. I will continue to point out its flaws and faulty premises in spite of yet another of your personal attacks. If my "dubious word" on commenting and pointing out these flaws is inappropriate, any admin is free to warn me if this is the case. Orsini 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks like a bad faith nomination, an attempt to censor Wikipedia, by somebody close to the subject who dislikes the article. Sorry your don't like the article, but the subject apparently did these things and they are in the public record. Having all this information neatly wrapped in a concise article is probably helpful to the legal system and good for society. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that the shots come from a different direction, see whom she criticizes AlfPhotoman 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3[edit]

The article is now almost unreadable so less harm is done, thanks. :-) Steve Dufour 18:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will comment in my nomination area on the expansion. --Justanother 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. failing WP:A
  2. failing WP:N
  3. failing WP:V
after taking a day to check, as far as possible from a rock in the middle of the Aegean, this article, unless I missed something, had the wrong glasses on or had a too deep look into my rum bottle this article, does neither AlfPhotoman 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
scuse me, could you explain? I sees something like former member of .... AlfPhotoman 11:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, scuse me. Alf, we could do without the ad hominem bit. Thanks --Justanother 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for assuming good faith, I was talking about the second paragraph of the Barbara Schwartz article, and in this light it is ...? AlfPhotoman 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I apologize, I thought you were referring to the voter in which case my comment would have been appropriate, I think. In answer to your question, "anti-Scientologists" feel that Ms. Schwarz reflects badly on Scientology (I do not feel that way for my own private reasons) so inclusion here is part of their attack on Scientology via Wikipedia that I reference in my "Reply to Orsini" above and in the COI sidebar. That they also get to strike back at their Usenet nemesis is thick icing and ice cream on the cake, IMO. Thank you for your interest. --Justanother 13:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the info box on the page Barbara's article "forms part of a series on Scientology." Steve Dufour 14:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and nobody has contested that i.a.w. WP:ATT yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I protested about it on the article's talk page. Steve Dufour 14:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so much for guidelines AlfPhotoman 14:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that there are different guidelines for Scientology related articles. Steve Dufour 15:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will remind you, Justanother, and I will remind Jpierreg whose comments failed to provoke any chiding from you, that ad hominem circumstantial arguments are ad hominem arguments. It amazes me that when you don't even know what point Alf is making but you think Scientologists might not be flattered by it you leap in and chastise him for supposed ad hominem and yet you have no hesitation about accusing "anti-Scientologists" of the worst possible faith, speaking as confidently about their purported malign motivations as if you thought you were a reliable source on the matter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia and how it all works. All I know is that almost every Scientology page I've seen on here has you fighting to the death to keep any negative aspect off it. Not only are you the one debating it till the end, but you are usually the first one to delete the Entheta. How does Admin on Wiki let you get away with this one sided nonsense? Paulhorner 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Paul. I am sure that you will get the hang of it. The first thing to know is that this is not Usenet, this is not your personal web site; you will have to stop lying. Good luck. --Justanother 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Justanother, WP:NPA. Please stop your outrageous personal attacks upon edits editors not sharing your pro-scientology POV, and follow WP:AGF with a new editor. Orsini 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the friendly welcome JA! I hope to pick this Wiki thing up soon because it's pretty fun. I do appreciate positive criticism but don't appreciate being called a liar. Please explain to me how I am lying or revert your statement. Paulhorner 01:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your lies, Paul? I don't have to look far: "agree with Justanother to delete everything on Wikipedia that is remotely negative to Scientology" --Justanother 02:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a lie? I believe that statement and so do a lot of others here. I think you also know it to be true, you just can't openly admit it because it would disserve your purpose here. That purpose being, is to remove anything negative about Scientology. Paulhorner 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, when someone thinks that they know all that there is to know about a second person that they just met based on the second person's race, religion, sex, etc., and what they "know" is just negative stereotyping, then that is called bigotry. Instead of bigotry, I suggest that you try WP:AGF. --Justanother 03:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions for Justanother - Can you please indicate the articles in the past for which you have initiated AfD discussions, and can you please indicate where you have voted to Keep any scientology-related article which was past nominated for AfD? Thanks. Orsini 06:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't waste my time. Look at my edit history. Nothing to hide - it is all there. --Justanother 06:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No? As a show of good faith, I held the mistaken belief you might like to proudly exhibit your good editing and neutral POV towards the AfD process of controversial scientology-related materials and thought you would welcome that opportunity, rather than insisting I wade through a flood of edits like the 500 edits made by you since 12:37, 2007 March 5. I do apologize. You have nothing to hide, of course, in the same way needles cannot be hidden in hay stacks. Orsini 07:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If JA has been doing that he has done a very poor job. :-) Steve Dufour 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have nothing to prove to you, Orsini. If you want to know then you pay the tab. You have paid for little of your disruption here with your 14 mainspace edits in 9 months. --Justanother 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! A Scientologist pulling the "Bigotry card" when cornerned. Next I bet you'll talk about your rights to religious freedom or something of that nature. As a new user, I'm saying that all I've seen you do is delete things critical of Scientology. Am I wrong? Do you not delete items critical of Scientology? Do you delete anything in Wikipedia besides articles related to Scientology? I'm curious. Paulhorner 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that damned religious freedom thing. Whose idea was that anyway? My edit history is available to you; just go to my user page and click "User contributions " on the lower left navbar. And if want to discuss this further, have the courtesy to take it to talk. --Justanother 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. Must focus on keeping this article available to the public. Paulhorner 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - Justanother, I'm curious. I said all you were here for was getting negative aspects about the "church" deleted. You said check your "edit history". Was that a bluff? I'm confused. Orsini just mentioned that you've had over 500 edits since March 5th, and to me it all looks Scientology related - nothing in favor of only delete. When I accuse you of "Justanother is only here to delete everything on Wikipedia that is remotely negative to Scientology", you shouldn't get angry. You should just nod your head and agree. It's not a big deal if you're that one sided, I think other people should just be aware of what you're main intention here is. It's the same deal with Barbara Schwarz. People need to be aware of crazy Scientologists. Paulhorner 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One can't help but ask whether your "religious feedom" is a typo or intentional... Raymond Arritt 04:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that is funny. Thanks for spotting that. Freudian slip, I guess (laff). --Justanother 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're lucky L Ron Hubbard doesn't speak of any "Daisy Empire" in any secret doctrines or Justanother would delete what you just said. Actually, I've read most of Hubbard's work, and there probably is a "Daisy Empire" somewhere in all that gibberish. Watch what you just said, it could be up for deletion soon.Paulhorner 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hate is not about what having an article like this in Wikipedia is about. It's about public knowledge and awareness. Barbara Schwarz is currently threatening to sue me over my website religiousfreedomwatch.info and because she says I receive money from a Mr Griffin in Australia for webhosting. If I had no idea who this lady was, I would be worried. Because of this Wiki page and Google it is very easy to find out the lawsuit has no merit.Paulhorner 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pentilius 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 4[edit]

Actuallly, the point being made was that the last Brandt AFD was longer than this. It had nothing to do with the number of nominations that Brandt's article had. --65.95.18.143 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. On my computer 85 pages scrolls for Brandt and only 30 here. Not even close. --Justanother 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment must be what she has in common with some supporters (smirk) AlfPhotoman 15:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recomment - And most (hard-core) detractors (grimace). --Justanother 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the devil also seems to fail NPOV. :-) Steve Dufour 13:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
especially in the devil's opinion, 'cause he claims he does not exist (grin) AlfPhotoman 14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People who are very (rather than borderline) notable don't complain that wikipedia has an article about them. But let me know if we get a complaint from the Devil's advocate. Andjam 22:08, 15 March 2007 (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 was delete. Bucketsofg 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9fans[edit]

9fans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mailing list. There is a complete lack of secondary sources on the subject. Googling brings up a total of only 33 unique google hits. This has never been written about by a reliable secondary source. Just because several notable people have supposedly posted messages to a mailing list does not make it notable/encyclopedic by any stretch. Delete as lacking any secondary sources. Wickethewok 05:03, 11 March 2007 (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 was Weak Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics and evolutionary psychology[edit]

Ethics and evolutionary psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article isn't about anything. Or, its title is an unencyclopedic intersection of two things, and its content is mostly something else entirely. It's like having an article titled potatoes and cheese that talks about whether or not cows will eat yams.

The article describes, briefly, several evolutionary phenomena that are almost entirely unrelated to ethics. The single sentence that does attempt to make a connection has a ((fact)) tag. Arguments like what this article is trying to advance - that kin selection and reciprocal altruism are relevant as formative processes in the evolution of human psychology - have been made in the literature, but aren't covered at all here, and belong in the evolutionary psychology article in any case. This is an AfD instead of a merge tag because there's really nothing here worth preserving, and the title's worthless as a redirect. Opabinia regalis 05:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I liked about the article at first glance was the careful effort at sourcing it. Most of the vague subject articles we tend to see here don't have good sourcing--if they have any at all; here, the ed. got most of the classics. The article can be expanded--there are a lot of details to talk about. Kin selection is obvious once you understand it, but not otherwise. And the balance been altruism with respect to different size units (band/population/species) can create some interesting dilemmas--both with apes and with people. . The problem in writing an article is picking out which examples to present. I think we have a usable outline. If the general art. is as bad as you say, it might be better to keep new content separate---but this is an editing question we dont have to bother everybody with. I've been doing AfDs too long--I may try some writing for a change. DGG 08:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I don't find the sources particularly compelling - nothing from Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, for example, who largely initiated and popularized the field. Selfish Gene and most of Trivers' early work really have nothing to do with this, except that they informed later hypotheses about the evolution of ethics. Shermer's book is pop-science, good for a further reading list but not much good as a source. It'd be great if you want to write a good article on the topic, but it's hard to imagine that this material would be useful to work from. Opabinia regalis 03:06, 12 March 2007 (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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 23:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth Hacks[edit]

Google Earth Hacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, fails WP:WEB Cman 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the WP page has been removed before this discussion has closed. I add the references,:

The book is about the topic in general; the others are pages where use of this program use is recommended or described. DGG 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a program though. It's a website.--TBCΦtalk? 08:42, 13 March 2007 (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 was Nomination withdrawn. Lot's of thanks to Codex Sinaiticus who actually did the merge. Selket Talk 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper names of Babylonia and Assyria[edit]

Proper names of Babylonia and Assyria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod deleted; article has had a merge template for about a year. The talk page says that all content is redundant, but I have not investigated this claim. No opinion. Selket Talk 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, lads -- I've just gone ahead and done the merge as requested a year ago. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:27, 11 March 2007 (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 was merge into Sylvia Anderson and Gerry Anderson. KrakatoaKatie 04:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia and Gerry Anderson[edit]

Sylvia and Gerry Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - redundant to the articles on the individual people, the production company and the various projects. There was a decision made to split the contents between the articles for Gerry and Sylvia but it does not appear that any work's been done on that since June 2006 and information is being added back to this article. In the face of the many other articles that cover this territory, this article should be deleted. Otto4711 06:17, 11 March 2007 (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 was keep. KrakatoaKatie 04:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linux kernel mailing list[edit]

Linux kernel mailing list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Internet mailing list with no useful information available from reliable sources. There was a VFD back in 2004 apparently (see the article talk page). Nothing really can be said about this except a rephrasing of the title. Delete as such. (new note: a merge would also be ok i think, this just doesn't need its own article) Wickethewok 06:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the articles just mention the mailing list and really don't say much about it. The article's only content is really that the subscribers are people who work on Linux and the fact that it is about Linux stuff. The list is probably notable, but I don't really see this article ever being substantial enough to warrant its own article. Perhaps this could be merged somewhere like into an article about linux kernel development? Wickethewok 06:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind it being merged with Linux kernel, but it's already oversized. Also, many other articles link to this article and its redirect page (LKML). utcursch | talk 07:28, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete and redirect, no attributable information to merge. The keep arguments were largely based on flawed reasoning, making redirect - especially when official policy is cited - a more strong argument in forming consensus. - Daniel Bryant 10:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletor vs Beastman[edit]

Skeletor vs Beastman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fan homage to song by novelty band Gnarkill. Redir to band article was reverted. Deiz talk 06:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "A exists, so why not B?" argument is never valid, articles must stand on their own merits. It's also not about volume of information, rather whether such information is a) sourced and b) enyclopedic. The closing admin may well disregard your opinion if you fail to address policy and guideline concerns. Deiz talk 15:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ElCapitanKyle created the article in question, and has made very few other contributions to Wikipedia. Deiz talk 15:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deiz, if you would specifically inform us of the "policy and guideline concerns" we are violating, the authors of the article in question (myself and Blitz Tiger) would be more than happy to make the necessary changes...
I'd say put WP:ATT (includes verifiability, original research and reliable sources) and WP:N at the top of your reading list. Deiz talk 15:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you, a little clarification was all I wanted. I will make those changes as soon as I get home from work later tonight. ElCapitanKyle 16:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to gnarkill. I doubt external reliable sources can be found to warrant its own article. —Ocatecir Talk 16:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. per above.--Parsleyjones 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of their notability stems from their famous members (Bam Margera et al) and appearances in their projects. Its not exactly a serious band. The song certainly exists, and is one of their more infamous moments among fans, but practically everything in the article is OR from watching videos and fan/forum CKY memes. Deiz talk 11:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to delete, it's a reason to clean up. Surely sources are available? Was it released as a single and did it chart? All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) (obscure UK indie pressing) is an FA so any notable song ought to be able to achieve the same. --kingboyk 13:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you realize what level this is all on, we're talking seriously obscure bedroom production. Afaik there's no single, certainly no charting and apparently no sources for any of this. Were this brought in line with policy I couldn't see any sensible option other than to redirect the sub-stub to the band article, but as that was contested I really had to send it here. Deiz talk 14:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds reasonable. Thanks for clearing that up. --kingboyk 14:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- My question, Deiz, is why are you are making such an enormous issue out of this? Just drop it. I don't mean this as a personal attack, I'm just puzzled as to why you so adamantly insist this subject does not deserve its own article. So what if it wasn't a hit single or ever made it to the charts? It's an extremely funny song that has become the quintessential Bam Margera/CKY crew work- hilarious, creative, and totally tasteless. Not to mention that it is a pretty well written article. --Der Kapitän 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, well written? How about well sourced? Well verified? Not original research? Read WP:ATT and explain how this article fits any of our content policies. And, just to reiterate, I founded WP:CKY and am well aware of how this fits into the CKY universe. It just doesn't fit into Wikipedia. Deiz talk 03:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles that have the things you site are often tagged as such, and given time to improve. I'm not sure why you immediately went to just get rid of it. Blitz Tiger 10:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD lasts 5 days, plenty of time to load "Skeletor vs Beastman" into google and see how many reliable sources you can come up with. Deiz talk 10:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, Deiz, but it's pretty much unsourcable. It is what it is; you can't find many in-depth analyses on it, considering it isn't exactly "high art" (although some would disagree). I can see why you dont think this topic should have a full length article, but what about a stub? 146.186.128.233 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as a "stub" as opposed to an "article" in the sense of an article of lower notability or importance, articles can be temporarily "stubbified" to remove damaging or controversial statements, or where a great deal of unsourced material is removed but some sources do indicate notability (Chris Raab being a recent example), neither of which applies here. Redirection does not necessarily mean deletion, and if reliable sources establishing the notability of the song were discovered in the future the page could theoretically be recreated if substantially improved. Deiz talk 12:31, 13 March 2007 (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 was delete and redirect. Keeps everyone happy :) - no applicable content, nor consensus, to merge. Daniel Bryant 10:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Dillinger[edit]

Doug Dillinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - non-notable performer on pro wretling shows, non-notable video game character. Do not appear to be sources attestign to his notability. Otto4711 06:33, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton County Democratic Party[edit]

Hamilton County Democratic Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable county political organization per WP:ORG rogerd 06:37, 11 March 2007 (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 was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reggae Reggae Sauce[edit]

Reggae Reggae Sauce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable product. The sauce is only on sale in one country, in one chain of stores, which does not reflect an accurate world-view. Indeed, that store has only stocked it in limited amounts, and only for less than 4 days now. A single mention by the BBC does not make a product notable. This article was speedily deleted by myself earlier, and this is a recreation that is unfortunately no better than the previous version because exactly Zero notablilty has been established. There's not notability for the company, for the sauce, hell even the singer it's named after wouldn't meet WP:BAND. Until this article achieves some REAL notability worldwide, or even significant notability in the UK (which it hasn't), it should remain off wikipedia. Perhaps on "wikicondiments" if there were such a thing. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 06:39, 11 March 2007 (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 was Jennifer Aniston nude err... I mean Speedy Delete - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 15:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vodei Multimedia Processor[edit]

Vodei Multimedia Processor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable, no reliable sources available, non-notable software J. M. 06:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it comes down to three possibilities: An accurate article, an article that serves to direct traffic to the software creator, or deletion. After carefully weighing these possibilities, I'd prefer the first choice, however, as it has been explained to me that Wikipedia is not about accuracy, that is not a possibility. Option number two is in conflict with Wikipedia standards according to this page. It is then my alternative choice that the article be removed and blocked from being recreated until reputable sources can be found. Until then, if someone wants accurate information, they can frequent MultimediaWiki for Their article. Posting an article that conforms to Wikipedia guidelines appears to be incompatable with posting a truthful article in this case. With that in mind, this subject can do nothing but damage the reputation of Wikipedia.Qabala 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vodei Multimedia Processor is not a company. —J. M. 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does having 557,000 results in Google and a bunch of forum discussions count? —Kn0wItAll 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Jennifer Aniston nude" has 2,130,000 results in Google. Does that mean we need an article about it? Now excuse me while I go review the results. --Mus Musculus 14:25, 13 March 2007 (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 was delete, could even have been considered a G7. Protection not required. - Daniel Bryant 10:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otaku's Dream Mix[edit]

Otaku's Dream Mix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A fan-made Stepmania mix which has no reliable sources written about it, failing WP:ATT's source requirements. The only references are to the group's website. Delete. Wickethewok 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the primary writer of this article. Wikipedia does allow primary sources per WP:ATT. No specialist knowledge is needed to check these facts: one need only download the pack and see the names of all members included in the project. One need only click the external link to otakusdream.com to see that, in fact, Jubo is the leader because it's his site and he says so ^_^ . One need only click the WhoIs.net reference to prove the registration date as true. I believe this article passes WP:ATT's criterion for primary sources. Neither does the article violate WP:OR as it does not make any attempts to assert a claim. Keep. --Naruttebayo 07:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concede at the request of Jubo. Please delete/protect the article page, whatever is deemed appropriate. --Naruttebayo 04:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A protect is certainly not necessary. Wickethewok 04:51, 13 March 2007 (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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 23:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Leet, Hong Kong Leet[edit]

Interesting, but completely unsupported by reliable, third party sources. Fails verifiability standards. RFerreira 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you expect an internet meme to yield any scholarly scources? Wikipedia has plenty of articles on internet-related phenomena, yet much of it does not appear in anything found in the conventional library. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:58, 14 March 2007 (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 was speedy deleted as non-notable biography; redirected to The_Impressions (Australian_band). That the individual who nominated this for deletion did so from a single-purpose account does not decrease the merit of the argument that the individual is not notable outside the notability of the band. JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel_Broderick[edit]

Daniel_Broderick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no reason why someone as insignificant as this needs to be in Wikipedia. It looks as if he made the page himself. Dan broders 07:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comment I just noticed: is this a bad faith nomination? Why is the nom's username the same as the person in the article, and why was his first post this AfD? -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:51, 11 March 2007 (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 was keep, no consensus to merge. Any further merge discussions should take place on the talk page of the article. - Daniel Bryant 10:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Roots[edit]

Levi Roots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Along with Reggae Reggae Sauce. I've speedily deleted before for CSD A7 no assertion of notabiltiy. Even as it exists now it is still highly non-notable. Does not meet WP:BAND as far as I can tell, nor does his business meet notability guidelines. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 07:28, 11 March 2007 (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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volapuk encoding[edit]

Volapuk encoding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has been marked as lacking reliable sources since December 2005. Suggest deletion per our policy on verifiability unless this can be remedied within the week. RFerreira 07:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I left a message at the Russian wikipedians' notice board. And this is my last involvement in this page. If they will not respond, I cannot care less. `'mikka 00:11, 13 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of samples used by Boards of Canada[edit]

List of samples used by Boards of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I absolutely love BoC, but this article is a painful amount of trivial information and original research. The last AFD was here (which was apparently when it was a list of lyrics or something?). Barely anything is sourced, and the parts that are are just links to the possible original source material. Removing all of the unsourced material, you're left with a microstub at best. Delete as trivia and original research. Wickethewok 07:58, 11 March 2007 (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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 23:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo NSider Forums[edit]

This page needs to be revived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.9.108 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Nintendo NSider Forums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Has been tagged as needing sources since November 2006. No sources have been forthcoming. Fails WP:ATT. Carolfrog 08:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Companies routinely have people monitoring Wikipedia nowadays; I doubt a computer corporation Nintendo's size fails to do so. I agree that an article that size shouldn't be merged with the main article. Where I disagree is that the exhaustive list of features (much like those of every other forum) is worth including. RGTraynor 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't advertising, it's an article about a real forum. If it said "Please join" or anything like that, then it would be advertising. Joiz A. Shmo 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently created an article about my personal forum. Nowhere in the article did it say 'Please join' but it was deleted for advertising. I don't see how that example differs from NSider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divine Corsair (talk • contribs)
Because it was your PERSONAL forum. I would be surprised if you got half as many hits in a week as NSider gets in a day. Also, by making an article about your own forum, you were, in fact, advertising. Joiz A. Shmo 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are now saying that articles should be deleted or kept on basis of hits, there are hundreds if not thousands of articles that should go right now, such as the article on The List of UN resolutions concerning Israel. Now I'm sure that gets a lot of hits. Or how about The Original Soul Seekers? Many hits per day, right? Otherwise, according to you, they shouldn't be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divine Corsair (talk • contribs)
Comment, Please see Wikipedia:Notability (web). Long story short, Official websites that feature verifiable and substantial information are allowed on Wikipedia as long as they meet Wikipedia's policies towards WP:Attribution to WP:reliable sources. This article was not nominated for deletion because it seems like an advertisement, but rather because it fails to meet the aforementioned policies --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  03:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:Notability (web). That is where the line is drawn. --SubSeven 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be out of place based on the current article's structure, but that doesn't mean a place cannot be created. The main Nintendo article mentions little to nothing about Nintendo's marketing of its products, so why not simply create a section on marketing (or, an entirely different article?) Obviously the entire creation section shouldn't be merged, but there's no denying that an online community that dates back 10 years (if you count Loudhouse and HTS, Nsider's forerunners) has some significance and should not be ignored. -PsychoYoshi 04:16, 17 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The grand war[edit]

The grand war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a neologism and a dictionary definition. Furthermore, it defines a satirical term as though it were meant to be taken literally. Wikipedia is not for things made up on TV one day. Deranged bulbasaur 08:30, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Foster (nonduality)[edit]

Jeff Foster (nonduality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed Prod, other articles on similar non-notable people were deleted via Prod, Tony Parsons (nonduality) and Nathan Gill. EnsRedShirt 08:37, 11 March 2007 (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 was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Betts[edit]

Naomi Betts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just being a bank robber hardly makes this person "notable" at all - in fact, I have yet to find any substantial reliable sources documenting this person's case (and her name gives only a few hundred Google hits) TML 05:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2007 (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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Gemin[edit]

Pamela Gemin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of User:71.210.212.187, who stated that Gemin has asked him/her to delete it for personal reasons. The article survived a previous AfD. Spacepotato 09:47, 11 March 2007 (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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University College London Conservative Society[edit]

University College London Conservative Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by original author with reason of 'Remove frivolous and unsupported PROD'. This is another totally unsourced article on a university society who's claim to notability is someone famous was once a member. Delete per the precedcents set before Nuttah68 10:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Every sentence in the article has a reference. Thus, it is not "totally unsourced", but totally sourced.
2) You have cited no precedent. There are precedents to support keeping the article at in the form of Cambridge Universities Labour Club and Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats. Note that these include university political societies.Hence, to claim that there is precedent is laughable.
3) Your cookie-cutter, cut+paste assertion that the claim to notability is the fame of its alumni is false. The 'Alumni' section comes at the end of the article. The actual claim to notability is mainfold:
3a) The society is the oldest and largest (by current student members) student Conservative society in the country.
3b) The society is not a chapter of the Conservative Party, but an independent organisation unaffiliated to the party. The relevant chapter of the Conservative Party is the Holborn and St Pancras Conservative Future.
3c) The society is one of the largest student societies, of any sort, in London. Look at Category:British student societies and tell me that there's any sort of policy or precedent.
3d) The society has a seat on the National Convention of the Conservative Party. It is, therefore, important by this ex officio status afforded to its President.
3e) The society has received a lot of attention in the blogosphere and the mainstream media. Most recently, Hugo Rifkind wrote a mini-article on the society in his column in the Times on 2nd March 2007.
3f) The society hosts innumerable Members of Parliament, Lords, and the Shadow Cabinet. In the last two weeks alone, the society has hosted Lord Strathclyde (27/2), John Whittingdale (2/3), and Richard Ottaway (6/3).
Given the above, I suggest that you, and the two people that have been misguided by your comment, reconsider your position. Bastin 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Then the solution is to make that point on the talk page, use ((Fact)) and ((Notability)), and to allow a short period in which the editors can then diversify the sources. The solution is NOT to inappropriately PROD the article, and immediately AfD it when that PROD is objected to. I have begun the process of introducing other sources, and intend to make at least half of the sources published by other individuals or organisations in the next couple of days. Bastin 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There are still a few more days, and the supporters better get the refs in--to save WP from the embarrassment of having deleted these 3 articles. DGG 05:24, 12 March 2007 (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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King's College London Conservative Society[edit]

King's College London Conservative Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by original author with reason of 'Remove frivolous and unsupported PROD'. This is another totally unsourced article on a university society who's claim to notability is someone famous was once a member. Delete per the precedcents set before. Nuttah68 10:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that more than one is necessary, and there are. Perhaps I should clarify it as alums relevant to the society or organization. This is a political asociation, and the alums are the ones N as conservative politicians. DGG 22:42, 12 March 2007 (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 was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Conservative Association[edit]

Oxford University Conservative Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by original author with reason of 'Remove frivolous and unsupported PROD'. This is another totally unsourced article on a university society who's claim to notability is someone famous was once a member and the has been some internal controversy. Delete per the precedcents set before Nuttah68 10:13, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph palazzo[edit]

Joseph palazzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This author is not notable. A google search returns comparatively few hits, and his books are published by "1st Books" which is known to be a vanity publisher. There is no reference made to coverage by third party, reliable sources. Deranged bulbasaur 12:19, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tabiat[edit]

Tabiat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable street. Nothing much from Google. Anas Talk? 12:33, 11 March 2007 (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 was keep. KrakatoaKatie 04:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Michael Jenkins[edit]

Brian Michael Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is unsourced, full of random thoughts like "he works for Kroll", and is apparently just a clever ad for his book. Nardman1 12:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unconquerable_Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) his book, also including in the nomination. Nardman1 12:55, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete and re-redirect, nothing really to merge. - Daniel Bryant 10:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getpid[edit]

Getpid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notability. Wikipedia is not a Unix or Linux manual. Freely-licensed Linux manual pages for such topics as this already exist, and can be contributed to, so there is no point in moving the article to Wikibooks either. greenrd 13:31, 11 March 2007 (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 was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-16 12:47Z

Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 1[edit]

Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article, and the other articles created for individual chapters of the book, contain cut-and-pasted translations of the chapters of Jerome's books, not articles about them. The main article, De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), has ample space for anything that needs to be said about Jerome's book, and it duly links to the external website where the entire translation can be read, sans typos even. Any content could also be considered for the Wikipedia articles on the various persons covered, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing that would pass muster for any articles actually monitored by Wikipedia editors. Note that the editor admits that he's adding these biographies from Jerome because "each biography has a very special meaning (if you study it very close)." Original research theories about "very special meanings," and the public-domain sources a user wants to offer the public in support of his original theories, should be offered on his own website, not in the Wikipedia article space. No idea what original theories are at stake for the user exactly, but it seems to involve decoding Jerome's text with the "Petrarch Code"; known agendas include the claim that the New Testament was written by Petrarch in the 14th century (see further User:Doug Coldwell/Revealing the Code for the claimed codes hiding in the letters of words in English translations of Petrarch, etc.). Wareh 13:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my Defense, here are my counter-points:

Comment. Both De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) and On Famous Women link to biographical articles that do not consist of primary texts, but are in the form of encyclopedia articles, so that I don't see that they are questionable by the same criteria that have been applied here. I'm not sure whether I know how to help resolve the confusion between an encyclopedia and a primary source, except to say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that primary sources are not encyclopedic content, so that, yes, there are very different standards for articles and for linkable primary texts. The translation of Jerome's book is probably public domain but is not accompanied by any bibliographic information, so someone would have to find the same translation in a library (or get better information from newadvent.org) to confirm the text's copyright status, if it is to be brought to Wikisource (not Wikipedia). And a point of clarification: I am not calling WP:OR on anything, although I have pointed out that the article author's original research seems be driving the selection of content that goes beyond the normal bounds for other reasons. Wareh 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I believe the key words here are "primary texts" verses just plain "biographical". Didn't realize there was a difference and that they should be handled different, however technically apparently there is. I have therefore taken out the links to the biographies that I did and put it back to just a list of the names (with no links). After you confirm what you need to confirm, then perhaps you will put Jerome's individual biographies on Wikipedia source (from whichever translation you think is appropriate). Meanwhile, did you look into the Reference source On Famous Women. There doesn't seem to be one, should there be? Also these link to approximately 30 - 40 "stubs" that do not have references or sources of any types (apparently this way for up to 5 years now for many of them). The quality of these "stubs" that are years old are very poor. The quality of my articles are of a very high standard. Now of course I am biased, however you might want to check them out. They are all listed on my User Page under "Articles I started". Now this article of "De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)" is just like De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) which has never had any objections from the onstart. This should now pass as an acceptable quality Wikipedia article.--Doug talk 19:07, 12 March 2007 (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 was keep. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isidro Mosquea[edit]

Isidro Mosquea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable boxer merely participating in events does not warrant its own article PrincessBrat 13:54, 11 March 2007 (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 was keep. Bucketsofg 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Kloze[edit]

Józef Kloze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Being the father of a current footballer does not warrant an article. non notable player. Probably more suitable for wikibios where non notable people can be listed if this is at all necessary PrincessBrat 13:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why has this article not been suitbly expanded with info? Also the link you gave for AJ Auxerre does not even mention him in the notable players list! --PrincessBrat 16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be in some kind of "best sportsmen ever" list to be notable. WP:BIO clearly states:

Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis. And that's enough for inclusion. MaxSem 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There is very little interest in this article, as can be seen from the amount of info on it. Why should there be articles in this site that are nothign more than one liners?
  2. Also you ignored my point about the club you linked in your first reply not having this player mentioned once in it.
  3. A google search on this player doesnt throw much up either.
  4. Also can you tell me what would you learn from reading the article currently up for deletion - which is what an encyclopedia is all about? --PrincessBrat 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) If an article is short - it should be expanded, not deleted. 2) Why article on club must be turned into list of its notable players? 3) Amount of Google hits IS NOT indicator of notabilty. 4) You shouldn't think that only people worth including are G8 leaders and superstars who get $20M for film/sports season. MaxSem 13:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the fourth point you fail to argue well, what eduaction do we get from this article? Nothing at all! --PrincessBrat 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' -- that is an essay, the opinion of its author. In reality, the precedent of what WP does contain is relevant--it represents the prior decisions of a general topic and prevents us from erratic inclusion. WP:BIo gives the standard that has been and remains accepted for athletes. We can of course change the standard, and that can be argued there. DGG 05:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This guy has played professional football at elite level in two countries - how is that not notable? It is not as if we are dealing with someone who was a squad player. The fact that it is a short article does not reflect a lack of notability.--Hack 02:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right in the article: "Kloze played professionally for AJ Auxerre [1] in France and Odra Opole in Poland" that is son is N in the same sport is interesting but not relevant for notability. He qualifies in his own right (I assume from the discussion that the teams mentioned qualify--I admit i do not know this myself--if they dont, then he is not notable).DGG 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that nobody has yet seen fit to expand an article on a notable person is not a reason to delete their article.... ChrisTheDude 22:48, 12 March 2007 (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 was keep for the moment per nominator's implied withdrawal. Yuser31415 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Magsamen[edit]

Sandra Magsamen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is hagiography. The notability is meager, and no references are provided for the claim of being "award-winning." Deranged bulbasaur 14:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, the language is rather fluffy (e.g. "vibrant and expressive works", "express ourselves in our own authentic and unique ways"). Still, if someone incorporates the links from above and rewrites the entire article before the end of this discussion, the article is worthy. - PoliticalJunkie 15:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her cloth book series from LB Kids, an imprint of Little, Brown Books for Young Readers, debuted in September with two books, Baby Love and My Blanket, which were awarded the Platinum Book Award, the highest honor bestowed by The Oppenheim Toy Portfolio. My Blanket won a Gold Award in the book category of the 2006 National Parenting Publications Awards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markart55 (talk • contribs)

The revisions look good. - PoliticalJunkie 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Use of the term "hagiography" in the nomination seems a bit rude. --EarthPerson 05:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why. It's bandied about rather freely here, and some works (e.g. the lives of the saints) are commonly described as hagiography with no depricatory intention. As far as I know, the literal meaning is "writings about greatness" or something similar, which doesn't seem very condemnatory. In any case, I'm leaning toward thinking the present version of the article is worth keeping. I might've withdrawn my nomination if it were a younger AfD, but since it's about to run its course anyway, I'll let the closing admin have his say. Congratulations to User:Mus Musculus for turning the article into something worthwhile. Deranged bulbasaur 17:32, 16 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan Handcock[edit]

Ronan Handcock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think the consensus is that being a failed game show contestant is not sufficient for notability. Merely being the heir to a barony, without otherwise doing anything remarkable, is not notable either. Deranged bulbasaur 14:52, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. Bucketsofg 19:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cheesecake Factory locations[edit]

List of Cheesecake Factory locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm AFD'ing this rather than prod'ing it because I'm waffling a bit on this article, and thought it could use some discussion. I'm uncomfortable with this article because it smacks of advertising. Is a list of restaurant locations really encyclopedic? I can't really think of much use for this page. There's not enough detail to give directions to a particular restaurant, so it's just a list of cities that have a Cheesecake Factory. Heaven forbid someone would start a List of Mcdonald's article. I'm not aware of any paper encyclopedia (and yes, WP is not paper) that would have such a list. It seems to me the encyclopedic thing to do would be to say on the Cheesecake Factory page that there are X number of restaurants, and if anyone wants the complete list, they can go to the main corporate site. eaolson 15:09, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. Bucketsofg 19:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joseph Phillips[edit]

Mark Joseph Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can't find an ISBN for any book by this author. I suspect he is someone who has self-published or had stories printed in minor pulp magazines; it seems to me he fails WP:NOTE Stephen Burnett 15:25, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasion Mura[edit]

Pasion Mura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. There are no ghits for Pasion Mura, nor his works. I initially marked it for speedy deletion, but the author contested the deletion. Then, the only defense he provided was "This page is for information. I created it to increase the wikipedia resources." Furthermore, he did not respond to my requests to verify his claims on Pasion Mura's fame. Sue H. Ping (talk • contribs) 15:35, 11 March 2007 (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 was Nomination withdrawn Deranged bulbasaur 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Fane[edit]

Julian Fane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is about a musician with one album published by a label of his own creation. There's no indication of notability beyond that. Deranged bulbasaur 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Fane has recently (in February) released another album which I aim to add info about as well. Both albums have been reviewed at allmusic.com which gets linked to by many album entries. Two record reviews except the short reviews at allmusic.com has been located: one in English [48] and one in Danish [49]. I do indeed fail to see why Julian Fane has any less notability than Jega with whom he is sharing record label (Planet Mu). Could you please elaborate on why this is not a proper indication of notability? Sebras 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what you say, it seems I misunderstood the text of the article. When you called it "Julian's record label" I thought you were implying self-publication and that it was one of the dozens of non-notable band articles that are created every day. Those references, and the article on the label itself, indicate otherwise. Deranged bulbasaur 03:08, 12 March 2007 (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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squacketball[edit]

Squacketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notability. A Google search returns 3 hits: 2 which are duplicates of the wiki racquetball article which once listed squacketball, and the other to my talk page. "what links here" returns no hits. The originator of the article said that a few people invented this game at his workplace. Also check the history of Racquetball and my talk page. Archer3 15:55, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Daily Show correspondent titles[edit]

List of The Daily Show correspondent titles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - this is the third AFD for this article. The first closed with a delete but got overturned because people who didn't feel like they got a chance to participate wanted their say, and was kept the second time with no consensus. The previous AFDs are linked on the talk page. This article amounts to "collection of trivial one-liners used once on a popular show." It is not encyclopedic. The topic is covered, including examples, in The Daily Show so there is no need to merge this content anywhere. Otto4711 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I thought I had fixed it. Otto4711 20:32, 12 March 2007 (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 was speedy deleted by Irishguy[50]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Phillips[edit]

Natalie Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This person is non-notable as per WP:NOTE Stephen Burnett 15:57, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of concept albums (narrative)[edit]

List of concept albums (narrative) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As noted on the talkpage, this list is extremely crufty and on top of that, it's entirely original research. Not a single verifiable source is cited and the prose reads like 5th-rate fansite material. Incomplete and sometimes wholly made-up (the "concept album" category is at best arguable anyway). On top of that, it serves no purpose beyond what a simple wiki category could do. Get rid of it! BotleySmith 17:15, 11 March 2007 (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 was Speedy Delete ZsinjTalk 03:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Inch Nails advertising[edit]

The things cited by these articles are mainly web sites where one can download files, or web sites that are clearly themselves parts of the promotional campaign described at Year Zero (album)#Promotion. Reading the sources cited by the latter, I see that we do not have a single reliable source amongst them to confirm such basic facts as the very existence of any of these mysterious USB drives, or the identity of "Elizabeth". The only things cited are pseudonymous postings on web discussion fora that link to other pseudonymous postings on other web discussion fora, in a self-referential nest of fan frenzy. This has all of the trappings of a publicity stunt and is unverifiable from sources that (a) are named and identifiable people (rather than possible pseudonymous astroturfing), (b) are fact checked and peer reviewed, and (c) have reputations to defend at all, let alone reputations for honesty and accuracy. Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. There's also strong evidence that this is a hoax. Notice the claims that spectrographs can reveal fingerprints and telephone numbers, and compare them with what spectrograms actually are. Furthermore, several of the articles contain original research into the domain names and telephone numbers, being performed directly by Wikipedia editors firsthand in Wikipedia itself. Uncle G 17:26, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete both. Chaser - T 11:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine radio and television stations[edit]

List of Philippine radio and television stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list. There are existing separate lists of radio and television stations. Danngarcia 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because with the same reason:

List of Philippine broadcast stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X and king[edit]

X and king (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Personal essay; not suitable or notable for inclusion in Wikipedia Mhking 17:55, 11 March 2007 (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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion victim[edit]

Fashion victim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is half dictionary definition, half personal essay. Calliopejen 17:56, 11 March 2007 (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 was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Palliative Medicine[edit]

Institute of Palliative Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable see google search [53], poorly written, and reads like an add. Masterpedia 18:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following the clean-up I change my vote to Weak keep. HagenUK 10:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folowing edit by Mus Musculus, this is possibly now a Weak keep. Nevertheless the article should be moved to Institute of Palliative Medicine, Kozhikode, and needs expansion to indicate more as to what is special about it and hence distinctive. Perhaps a little of its hisotry might be useful. Peterkingiron 23:13, 14 March 2007 (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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychogenetics[edit]

Psychogenetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

mostly OR babble, merge any material supported by RS to Behavioural genetics, else redirect there per Wim Crusio's comment on Talk:Psychogenetics Pete.Hurd 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes , the possibility of using this term clearly occurred to a number of people, but it did not become established as a discipline under that name.DGG 23:07, 12 March 2007 (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 was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 00:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Teuber (second nomination)[edit]

Andreas Teuber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously speedied for copyvio (see above, was done today), but resuscitated in a different form that is no longer copyvio. However, notability is still questionable. Dennisthe2 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC) NOMINATION WITHDRAWN, see the commentary below. Didn't realize the motive. =^^=;; --Dennisthe2 18:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD IS STILL ACTIVE - nomination cannot be withdrawn after delete votes have been cast. If you think that I am wrong about this, then I nominate the article pro forma myself. - Richard Cavell 00:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the nomination can be withdrawn, it's just that the AFD cannot be speedily closed. -- Black Falcon 03:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, remember, just being a member of a group and a prof at a university does not automagically give notability. It's like being a member of MENSA and an employee at Google - it's cool, but not a qualifier. --Dennisthe2 18:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it depends on the group. IAS is a very limited circle indeed. And a major development or research position in Google is notable, and we have a number of articles on such people. It depends on the position. (just for the record) :)DGG 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this has me convinced to withdraw my nomination. NOMINATION WITHDRAWN, somebody close this? --Dennisthe2 18:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...withdrawn withdrawal. --Dennisthe2 21:26, 16 March 2007 (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 was no consensus, coupled with the various rewrites, makes most of this AfD discussion moot. Relist if you feel like it, immediately even. - Daniel Bryant 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiang Kai-shek Statue[edit]

Chiang Kai-shek Statue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Comment - I see what you mean, but we shouldn't turn Wikipedia into a news service. That information can be included in the death and legacy section in the article on Chiang Kai-shek, I think that is where people would look for information about the statues.--Niohe 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This information is moderately interesting, but doesn't deserve its own article. --Ideogram 08:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I don't think that's criteria for deletion. And even before the controversy, I would argue that these statues are notable enough for an article, as they are placed all over Taiwan. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are snakemeat kiosks. You think those warrant an article of their own? --Nlu (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You feel like nominating Betel nut beauty for deletion? Article's been around since 2003. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about it. --Nlu (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should have articles for George Washington Statue or Mao Tse-tung Poster? --Ideogram 10:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should have any articles about these statues either, even though I think that statues of Mao Zedong or Lenin were even more pervasive than Chiang statues have ever been. As far as I know, the controversy that this article is about was not spawned by the statues themseleves, but about the legacy of Chiang. No one is discussing the artistic value of the statues, who made them, when they were erected, or provided any statue-specific information.--Niohe 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These statues have been the subject of coverage that is independent of coverage of Chiang Kai-shek. What is the reason grounded in policy that they shouldn't have their own article? I agree that the article isn't complete because it lacks "statue-specific information", but incompleteness is not a criterion for deletion. The article was AFD'd 5 minutes after its creation, has been improved significantly over the past 5 days, and is on a topic that meets our notability guideline. The article does need further improvement, but that cannot occur if it's deleted. -- Black Falcon 03:25, 17 March 2007 (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 was keep. Bucketsofg 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Rousseau[edit]

Danielle Rousseau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously, it had been decided that only Lost characters who were credited as "starring" (i.e. Jack, Eko) or had flashback episodes devoted to them (i.e. Rose, Bernard) would be given an article. Numerous attempts were made to create a page for Danielle Rousseau, who has appeared in over 10 out of over 60 episodes of Lost. Recently the page has been created again without discussion. I propose that the information on the page be merged into Characters of Lost, the article be deleted and then turned into a redirect to Characters of Lost (for easier navigation through Lost articles on Wikipedia). If this AfD fails, then pages should be created for a few other recurring characters, most notably Tom, who has been in more episodes than Rousseau, Rose or Bernard. See also these current and previous discussions: Talk:Characters_of_Lost#Danielle_Rousseau, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau (Lost), Talk:Characters_of_Lost/Archive02#.22Main.22_Characters, Talk:Danielle Rousseau, Talk:Characters of Lost/Archive 4 and Talk:Characters of Lost/Archive05. Vote and discuss now! --thedemonhog 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I created the Tom page after I saw how this "debate" was going. Nikki and Paulo are credited as main cast on-screen. Also, I should have suggested a merge instead of a delete, but this was my first deletion nomination so now I know. --thedemonhog 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, the nominator of this deletion, created some of those pages after I saw how this was going. --thedemonhog 00:13, 15 March 2007 (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 was Delete and Redirect. Cbrown1023 talk 00:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Want Your Soul[edit]

We Want Your Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We've had this issue before with Class of 3000 songs: they should be covered in the article of the episode they appear in. Further, lyrics do not belong on Wikipedia, especially ones that infringe copyrights (obviously) - see WP:NOT#IINFO. Tozoku 19:49, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snookerpool[edit]

Snookerpool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'd Speedy delete this, but I can't find the correct reason (the original reason no longer applies.) Sigma 7 20:00, 11 March 2007 (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 was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jambo[edit]

Jambo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

del. This is English language encyclopedia. Shall we have articles about words in all languages of the world? Guten Tag, Konnichi wa, Privetik, Witam panstwo, Zdravstvuyte, Zdorovenki buly, Labas rytas, Terve, Bon giorno, Buna ziua,.... `'mikka 21:09, 11 March 2007 (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 was keep. Someone tagged the article with ((advertisement)), which is just what it needs. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aveda[edit]

Aveda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I posted a ((db-spam)) on this article, that deletion was contested and some improvements have since been made to the article. In my opinion the article still fails Wikipedia:Spam all the "references" are links to primary sources and as such the article fails WP:A. Additionally the article would appear to have conflict of interest issues and does not appear to meet WP:NPOV expectations I leave it to the Wikipedia community to consider. Jeepday 21:09, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of mythical and religious beings appearing in fictional context[edit]

List of mythical and religious beings appearing in fictional context (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ill-conceived, impossible to complete attempt to list all appearances of deities/mythical figures in fiction. The list is relatively short but that's just because it has received relatively little attention: in theory, this list should contain every myth ever written (and many times, cross-referenced under every character that appears in them). Even just having the monotheistic God on the list would make for a list that's too long: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of God in fiction. As one comment said in the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of real people appearing in fictional context, this concept practically needs its own wiki to do properly. Mangojuicetalk 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment even though I agree with your vote, I want to point out that mythology collections are considered nonfiction. Using "fiction" to mean "untrue" is erroneous. A lot of categories of nonfiction are untrue. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at some of the links on the list, and there are whole articles devoted to "----- in popular culture" for some of the items on this list and long sections in some of the Wikipedia articles for many of the others. This list hasn't been maintained well, and if it were, as has been said, it would be too long. For those few items that don't have "---- in popular culture" sections, I'm moving some of the information from here to those articles. Noroton 00:06, 14 March 2007 (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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sameh Abdallah El Alaily[edit]

Sameh Abdallah El Alaily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dense, unwikified article but don't let that put you off actually reading it, please. Skirts CSD-A7 - some assertions of notability, but they amount to very little. Most of article is a copy of a speech the guy made. Author says the article is his father's birthday present. The talk page carries a long list of external links that show a degree of notability or at least enough to make this an AfD matter. On that basis, we might need an article on this guy... but this isn't it, sadly.〈REDVEЯS〉 21:52, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FFTAGFFR[edit]

FFTAGFFR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable acronym that fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Avoid neologisms. Prod removed by only author. Also added by same author: YOYO. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:51, 11 March 2007 (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 was delete and redirect to Yo-yo, with no restrictions on rewriting the article "YOYO" with sources if it's possible. - Daniel Bryant 00:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOYO[edit]

YOYO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable acronym that fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Avoid neologisms. Prod removed by only author. Also added by same author: FFTAGFFR. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Rebuttal: YOYO is NOT a "idiotic neologisms made up on the internet one day" Rather, it is an acronym that is now part of the public lexicon. I just did a Google search on "YOYO you're on your own" and found 20,500 entries. Thus, this acronym does NOT fall in the category of "...things made up in school one day." Unless you can cite another reason, then I believe that this entry should stand. - Jeff Trasel, 0658 PST, 12 March, 2007

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

The result was keep. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sligh[edit]

Chris Sligh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable John Foxe 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derrty2033 talk Derrty2033 23:30, 12 March 2007 (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 was delete. As consensus points out, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to reliable published sources.

There is no consensus here to move the article to Wikitionary. However, that does not mean that an entry couldn't be started on Wikitionary independant to this. - Daniel Bryant 10:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTSHTF[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

((subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]))
WTSHTF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable acronym that fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Avoid neologisms. Prod removed by only author. Also added by same author: YOYO and FFTAGFFR. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WTSHTF is NOT a "idiotic neologisms made up on the internet one day" Rather, it is an acronym that is part of the public lexicon. I just did a Google search on WTSHTF and got 6,490 entries. Then I searched on SHTF. It had 88,600 entries! Thus, these acronyms do NOT fall in the category of "...things made up in school one day." Unless you can cite another reason, then I believe that this entry should stand. - Jeff Trasel, 0651 PST, 12 march, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trasel (talk • contribs).
  • The "reliable source" factor is not what is at issue here, Arichnad! The meaning of this acronym is undisputable, so sourcing would only be an issue if the entry delved into the origin of the acronym. I cited the sheer number of Google hits on WTSHTF andSHTF to illustrate the POPULARITY of the acronym. If those numbers don't constitute common use, then you had better go through the Wiktionary on safari and start posting PRODs on several hundred *existing* wiki acronym entries for acronyms that are downright obscure, compared to WTSHTF and SHTF.
  • I still vote to RETAIN this entry. - Jeff Trasel, 1557 PST, 12 March, 2007


- Jeff Trasel, 1938 PST, 12 March, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trasel (talk • contribs).
  • Do you know of any reliable sources that back that up? Just because it is used quite frequently in your sphere doesn't mean that it has reliable sources necessary to stay on Wikipedia. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:26, 13 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Daniel Bryant 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Cualoping[edit]

Irene Cualoping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article appears to assert some notability now, maybe as photojournalist for Asian Week, but I'm not convinced that there's more than very sparse sources to write a neutral article from. Borderline delete although it may be possible to improve adequately. — coelacan — 22:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello we were not done posting at time deletion note made...hangon thanks! 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Universe[edit]

Chaotic Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can't find evidence that this book even exists, let alone any third-party sources. Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Original 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Genesis Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kris Wilson(fictional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Daraun Givens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anna Vest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brandi Blas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tonya Muse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Drasil Universe Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elemental Masters Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Angela Haynes(fictional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chaotic Universe 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:39, 11 March 2007 (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 was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with similar themes and release dates[edit]

List of films with similar themes and release dates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of trivia based on original research. —тяеɢощетн (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does this article contain 37 footnotes and an external link to an article on precisely the topic in question? Did you even bother to look at the article? This article is incredibly well sourced. --JayHenry 03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify: Most of the sources in the article link to movie reviews. In other words, opinions on movies, thus a clear violation of WP:NPOV.--TBCΦtalk? 04:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:POV are you referring to? I don't see what section of the guideline you think is being violated. --JayHenry 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. WP:POV used to be a shortcut to Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. --TBCΦtalk? 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, TBC, you might want to look at WP:POV, especially where it says:
"Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy."
Movie reviewers are generally good sources for something like "this film has a very similar theme to that film which was just released a little while ago", and statements like that are hardly ever disputed in real life. And if movie reviewers can't be used, then there are news articles on movies with similar themes and release dates, and there's no doubt at all that those can be used in footnotes, if the source is responsible. According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the question is over whether something can be sourced, not whether or not it has or hasn't been. So there really shouldn't be a probelm with that. Noroton 01:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments below: "Opinions can be cited with facts, but facts should never be cited with opinions". For example, it's valid to state that numerous authors feel that Shakespeare was one of history's greatest authors, but not so if one were to state that Shakespeare is the greatest author ever born. --TBCΦtalk? 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the second discussion, it was pointed out that this isn't some made up concept, but that the concept itself of films with similar themes and release dates was covered in a Washington Post article, as well as mentioned in dozens of reviews of these films. Claims of WP:OR are not valid here. --JayHenry 03:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's why we're letting movie reviewers point these things out. Considering how frequently the media points out these things, sourcing should not be a problem. If it gets discussed in a movie review as being a similar theme and release date to another film, then it's not an original research issue, regardless of whether the films are two months apart or seven years, and there's no need for Wikipedia editors to invent their own criteria for exactly what "similarity" entails. Including all remakes, even ones decades apart, is an editing issue rather than any kind of deletion criteria, and such things can easily be pruned out by normal editing processes. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that the entire article as a concept suffers from irreparable NPOV issues. One reviewer might look at "Film with white cats released in January 2005" and "Film with black cats released in December 2006" and state in his review that they share "similar" themes and a "similar" release date while another reviewer looks at the same two films and states in her review "It's been too long since we've had a movie about cats!" or "White Cat Movie explored themes of mouse catching while Black Cat Movie takes a totally different approach by delving deep into the world of playing with yarn." and by putting the films in this list we are giving undue weight to the first review. Otto4711 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, the article has a lot of POV issues that have yet to been addressed.--TBCΦtalk? 08:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unable to locate any sources that discuss this "competing cinema trend" you speak of. I'm not familiar with the concept, can you point me toward some references which describe it? Otto4711 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about the one listed in the external links section of the article you're trying to delete? --JayHenry 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not appear to support the notion that there is a "trend" in Hollywood to release films with similar themes deliberately to compete with each other. Indeed, the article seems to indicate that studios don't like the idea of being the second to release a film with a similar theme, that it is an aberration for films to be marketed as the second similar film and that the conventional wisdom is that it's a bad idea. Otto4711 05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your concern is Eptin's statement that the "trend seems to only be getting more common" then I agree we should leave that out. But the WashPost article clearly delineates "a recurring phenomenon," if you're uncomfortable with the word "trend." When I read the list here, I think it already deals with your POV concerns pretty well. When a movie has significant differences as well as similarities, they are noted in the entry. But this sort of thing is really for the talk page, not for a deletion review. Theoretically, there might be a lot of POV concerns on a list like this; in actuality, it's not a significant problem. The list isn't flawed beyond the ability of a talk page to sort it out. --JayHenry 05:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What WaPo calls a "recurring phenomenon" I call a coincidence. And noting the differences IMHO exacerbates the POV problem rather than relieving it, since it requires editors to make subjective judgments as to what the differences and similarities are and whether the similarities outweigh the differences to a degree that allows or forbids exclusion. And I've already explained why appealing to movie reviewers or other external sources is problematic. Babe, Charlotte's Web and Animal Farm are all films about talking pigs. The Royal Tenenbaums and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are both about dysfunctional families. I Spit on Your Grave and The Accused are both about women dealing with being raped. Yes these are extreme examples (and they're from different years, which for purposes of these examples is not the point) but some of the items currently on the list are also pretty big stretches to tie them together. Otto4711 05:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you believe the problem is so compelling that the article must be deleted entirely I find it odd that you're not siting examples from the list. Actually, i don't find it odd. The problems are theoretical -- in actuality, this list isn't causing the kind of problems you're worried about.
  • WP:NPOV is about neutral presentation. It doesn't say you hide differing viewpoints or delete articles that contain differing viewpoints, it says you present them neutrally. This article does a very good job of doing that. --JayHenry 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I see above in your initial post that you do site examples you find problematic. I guess it just seems to me that the POV issues you're concerned with are adequately dealt with by including the rebuttal, i.e. "Both films are about rats but one is set in a Parisian restaurant and the other in a sewer system." or whatever. That's neutral presentation. --JayHenry 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's exactly the point. The very existence of this list is predicated on the notion that the similarities of the films are greater than their differences and that is inherently and fatally POV-pushing. If critic 1 says Films A and B are similar and critic 2 says they aren't then listing Films A and B on a "List of similar films" at all is giving undue weight to critic 1, even if the objections of critic 2 are noted. Otto4711 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. To me the list just says the similarities are noteworthy. I don't think it suggests the similarities are greater than the differences. I mean, the differences are always greater than the similarities. But that's not what the list -- or this AfD discussion -- is about. --JayHenry 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it already has 38 sources, but I agree, more should (and easily can) be added. --JayHenry 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just because you can cite an essay WP:INTERESTING or WP:USEFUL (not policy, not guidelines) doesn't mean the list isn't nontrivial, encyclopedic and a contribution that improves Wikipedia. Noroton 02:00, 14 March 2007 (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 was keep. Ability to attribute sources demonstrated; consensus is to keep despite claim of non-notability. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Hicks[edit]

Esther Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced since December. All sources appear to be self-published. Tone has been improved somewhat, but still seems more of an advertisement than encyclopedic. Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carptrash 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The books of Jane Austen are not useful as sources of factual information about Jane Austen herself. All a person's own literary output is useful for is in regarding the views of that individual – not as an independent, reliable source of information about them. — BillC talk 00:06, 15 March 2007 (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 was no consensus. - Bobet 18:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet slang phrases[edit]

List of Internet slang phrases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Internet_slang.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Already tranwikied to Wiktionary, see Wiktionary:Transwiki:List_of_Internet_slang_phrases. Pan Dan 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent reasoning for a soft redirect to the identical wiktionary article. nadav 22:59, 12 March 2007 (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 was delete. Chaser - T 11:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of paintball scenario teams[edit]

List of paintball scenario teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A completely useless, unencyclopedic, unverifiable list. The teams listed here are not notable. I was the one who originally seperated this article from List of professional paintball teams to avoid debating and arguments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenStorm (talk • contribs)

  • Which method of execution would you prefer?  ;) -- Black Falcon 03:53, 17 March 2007 (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 was Keep Gnangarra 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karmein Chan[edit]

Karmein Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A murder victim, who is not well known, nor did her death lead to anything of import (laws, books etc.); her murder is already covered in the article on the murderer. Delete per WP:NOT a memorial. --Peta 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be considered with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Simpson--Golden Wattle talk 01:17, 12 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Bobet 18:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Lee (model)[edit]

Veronica Lee (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not demonstrate notability per WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Reason for AFD was due to the fact that the speedy delete was contested by another user, hence the move. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:17, 11 March 2007 (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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pagat.com[edit]

Pagat.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB. RJASE1 Talk 23:25, 11 March 2007 (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 was Delete all 124 listed articles. note I'm using popups to delete, please contact me to have any erronously listed articles restored Gnangarra 12:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1850-51 Australian cricket season[edit]

1850-51 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a notable cricket season, article effectively empty. The matter has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#1877-78 Australian cricket season. This AfD is intended to cover all similar articles where no additional information about the season has been included. It does not cover the 1977-78 Australian cricket season , 1876-77 Australian cricket season , 1980-81 Australian cricket season , 1932-33 Australian cricket season, or the 1928-29 Australian cricket season - each of which have had content added and claims to notability. In the discussion at WikiProject Cricket, it was noted that it should be possible to write a meaningful article when there had been a real competition in place: domestic or international. Similarly for tours. The difficulty arises when, as in the 1877-78 Australian cricket season, there was very little domestic competition and no international interest, and is even more problematic for earlier years when there is very little record of anything much "official" happening. The template for the articles is at Template talk:Australian cricket seasons to make it easy for editors to create articles with a similar look and feel. I believe however that red links are better than effectively empty blue links. The prod of the 1876-77 Australian cricket season was objected to, hence the escalation to AfD. Delete Golden Wattle talk 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - have only had time to tag up too 1879/80 with ((subst:afd1|1850-51 Australian cricket season)) so far - it is a very time consuming process and I have real life pressures.--Golden Wattle talk 23:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from articles mentioned above, also excluded are 1940-41 to 1944-45 Australian cricket seasons and 1915-16 to 1917-18 Australian cricket seasons as being not empty.--Golden Wattle talk 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also 1903-04 Australian cricket season , 1898-99 Australian cricket season, 1913-14 Australian cricket season , 1910-11 Australian cricket season , 1878-79 Australian cricket season , 1925-26 Australian cricket season , 1927-28 Australian cricket season, 1937-38 Australian cricket season are no longer entirely "empty". --Golden Wattle talk 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1850-51 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1856-57 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1857-58 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1858-59 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1859-60 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1860-61 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1861-62 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1862-63 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1863-64 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1864-65 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1865-66 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1866-67 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1867-68 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1868-69 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1869-70 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1870-71 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1871-72 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1872-73 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1873-74 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1874-75 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1875-76 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1879-80 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1880-81 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1881-82 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1882-83 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1883-84 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1884-85 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1885-86 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1886-87 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1887-88 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1888-89 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1889-90 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1892-93 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1893-94 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1894-95 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1895-96 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1896-97 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1897-98 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1899-1900 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1901-02 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1902-03 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1904-05 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1905-06 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1906-07 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1907-08 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1908-09 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1909-10 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1911-12 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1912-13 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1918-19 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1919-20 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1920-21 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1921-22 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1922-23 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1923-24 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1924-25 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1926-27 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1929-30 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1930-31 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1931-32 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1933-34 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1934-35 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1935-36 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1936-37 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1938-39 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1939-40 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1945-46 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1946-47 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1947-48 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1948-49 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1949-50 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1950-51 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1951-52 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1952-53 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1953-54 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1954-55 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1955-56 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1956-57 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1957-58 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1958-59 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1959-60 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1960-61 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1961-62 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1962-63 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1963-64 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1964-65 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1965-66 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1966-67 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1967-68 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1968-69 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1969-70 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1970-71 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1971-72 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1972-73 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1973-74 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1974-75 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1975-76 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1976-77 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1978-79 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979-80 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1981-82 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1982-83 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1983-84 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1984-85 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1985-86 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1986-87 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1987-88 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1988-89 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1989-90 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1990-91 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1991-92 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1992-93 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1993-94 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1994-95 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1995-96 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1996-97 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1997-98 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1998-99 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1999-2000 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2000-01 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2001-02 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2002-03 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2003-04 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2004-05 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 00:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison McMahan[edit]

Alison McMahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

IMDB only lists her as an assistant director on a project [60], with no mention of the other films listed in this article. The only thing I could find to corroborate this article is the official website [www.alisonmcmahan.com] which was clearly the source for this article as it skirts the edge of being a copyvio. All the external links are websites associated with the subject to purchase her goods. I don't see any evidence of them being distributed by others. IrishGuy talk 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that this article was relevant to IMDB because she is linked to on other IMDB pages, because of her work with the Alice Guy Blaché biography and the critical analysis of Tim Burton. Since her name was in red on those pages, it seemed to me that it was appropriate to the link lead to something. If the use of her biography is a copyright violation, then I will happily edit it. Thank you for your comments. Rainb 06:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, she only has one credit on IMDB. As for the Tim Burton article, you added the external link. IrishGuy talk 08:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true, I added the external link to her book on the Tim Burton page, which I did because her book was previously sited as an academic source for the page. The link that I followed that made me realize there was no page was the one on Alice Guy Blaché. I mistyped above when I wrote IMDB - I meant to Wikipedia - she is linked off of other Wikipedia pages. I apologize for the mistype. Rainb 00:19, 13 March 2007 (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 was delete. - Bobet 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dino (language)[edit]

Dino (language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not an actual fictional language, just a puzzle from a game: English-language text with letters substituted for different ones (see Caesar cipher). Creator removed WP:PROD notice without any explanation. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:52, 11 March 2007 (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 was Keep -- Note that WP:NOTNEWS is a rejected policy, delete arguements based on this have been discounted. Gnangarra 01:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu[edit]

Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A murder victim; her murder is covered in the alleged murders article, she is not otherwise notable. Delete per WP:NOT a memorial. --Peta 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that process has not been followed - in particular there was no clear edit summary notifying of the nomination. This nomination should be considered with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Simpson--Golden Wattle talk 01:16, 12 March 2007 (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 preceding unsigned comment was added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 March 2007 (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 was Keep and renamed as Murder of Ebony Simpson Gnangarra 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony Simpson[edit]

Ebony Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A murder victim; her murder is covered in the murders article, she is not otherwise notable. Delete per WP:NOT a memorial.--Peta 23:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: 1992 cases are less likely to attract google hits than more recent cases - this was a very major news story for a long period of time - significantly more notable in my view based on coverage particularly by the tabloid press and women's magazines than say the Brian Burke scandal which somebody thinks worthy of an article. WP:Bio states A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. I am disappointed that deletion debates focus on what people think might be notable rather than actual independent objective criteria. Ebony Simpson was the subject of many many newspaper and magazine stories. Dating from 1992 most of these are not online. She is still however mentioned from time to time in the newspapers. She is the subject of a book. I have difficulty with comments from people who were too young and/or not in Australia who would be unable to judge the amount of coverage this topic received.If they can't judge on that basis then they need to use the objective criterion provided by WP:Bio is that she meets the notability threshold. Notwithstanding these comments, I accept that as above, the article might be better merged with that of the murderer and discuss the murder and afermath.--Golden Wattle talk 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Edison, it is articles like this that help Wikipedia rise above the lowest common denominator material which occupies a large chunk of the internet. This was really front page news at the time and much more notable than current google hits may indicate.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a memorial article. This was a MAJOR news story in Australia in 1992. JRG 21:35, 13 March 2007 (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.
More