< March 11 March 13 >
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 deleted in the mass nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya (TimeSplitters). --ais523 08:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ghost (TimeSplitters)[edit]

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

Delete Non notable. I also nominate all of the following articles (please excuse the large number of articles, for so many shouldn't have been created to begin with):

All of these are Wikia caliber articles and do not need to exist. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 17:02, 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 deleted in the mass nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya (TimeSplitters). --ais523 08:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The General (TimeSplitters)[edit]

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

Delete Non notable. I also nominate all of the following articles (please excuse the large number of articles, for so many shouldn't have been created to begin with):

All of these are Wikia caliber articles and do not need to exist. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 17:00, 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 deleted in the mass nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya (TimeSplitters). --ais523 08:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gargoyle (TimeSplitters)[edit]

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

Delete Non notable. I also nominate all of the following articles (please excuse the large number of articles, for so many shouldn't have been created to begin with):

All of these are Wikia caliber articles and do not need to exist. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:58, 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 deleted in the mass nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya (TimeSplitters). --ais523 08:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Duckman Drake[edit]

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

Delete Non notable. I also nominate all of the following articles (please excuse the large number of articles, for so many shouldn't have been created to begin with):

All of these are Wikia caliber articles and do not need to exist. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:56, 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 deleted in the mass nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya (TimeSplitters). --ais523 08:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Cropolite[edit]

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

Delete Non notable. I also nominate all of the following articles (please excuse the large number of articles, for so many shouldn't have been created to begin with):

All of these are Wikia caliber articles and do not need to exist. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:54, 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 deleted in the mass nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya (TimeSplitters). --ais523 08:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Crispin (TimeSplitters)[edit]

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

Delete Non notable. I also nominate all of the following articles (please excuse the large number of articles, for so many shouldn't have been created to begin with):

All of these are Wikia caliber articles and do not need to exist. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:51, 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 deleted in the mass nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya (TimeSplitters). --ais523 08:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Brains (TimeSplitters)[edit]

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

Delete Non notable. I also nominate all of the following articles (please excuse the large number of articles, for so many shouldn't have been created to begin with):

All of these are Wikia caliber articles and do not need to exist. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:47, 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 deleted in the mass nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya (TimeSplitters). --ais523 08:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bear (TimeSplitters)[edit]

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

Delete Non notable. I also nominate all of the following articles (please excuse the large number of articles, for so many shouldn't have been created to begin with):

All of these are Wikia caliber articles and do not need to exist. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:46, 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 deleted in the mass nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya (TimeSplitters). --ais523 08:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Badass Cyborg[edit]

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

Delete Non notable. I also nominate all of the following articles (please excuse the large number of articles, for so many shouldn't have been created to begin with):

All of these are Wikia caliber articles and do not need to exist. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:45, 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 deleted in the mass nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya (TimeSplitters). --ais523 08:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Aztec Warrior[edit]

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

Delete Non notable. I also nominate all of the following articles (please excuse the large number of articles, for so many shouldn't have been created to begin with):

All of these are Wikia caliber articles and do not need to exist. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:44, 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 deleted in the joint nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 1. --ais523 08:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 17[edit]

Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

use of source text Brian0324 14:11, 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. --Coredesat 01:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Todd, Dave Mac[edit]

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

Iron Maiden band member with incredibly short tenure (2 days). Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Already been A7'd once, second submission was prodded, and then prod was removed by page author. NMChico24 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion begins below
  • Comment. I did not know that about GFDL terms, Dhartung. Thanks for the tip. Pigmandialogue 05:38, 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 because there is consensus to do so, and the article meets the minimum inclusion criteria for notability and references. Regarding some of the more detailed chapter summaries, it might be wise to transwiki them to Wikisource (see [1]). YechielMan 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)[edit]

obviously notable text, but current article is unsalvageably unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jerome's_De_viris_illustribus_Chapter_1 Nardman1 00:09, 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 keep & cleanup. KrakatoaKatie 04:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20th Kisei[edit]

20th Kisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

wtf? Nardman1 00:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you added the tag and simply said "wtf?" here? This is a tournament used in Go which hasn't been formatted yet to look like the other Kisei tournament articles (see 1st Kisei, 2nd Kisei, 31st Kisei etc). CanbekEsen 00:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, gee, some context to the article would be nice. Nardman1 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but I'm not a machine and I'm not able to edit all these articles at once. All of them should be done soon. CanbekEsen 00:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'd call it just a directory of links. When I first started these, they were just the tournament brackets, but as can be see by the 31st Kisei, these have potential in becoming articles with a load of information, but in due time. But if we do come to the comprimise of deleting such articles except the 1st Kisei, I'd like it if it wasn't speedied, as I'd like to backup these articles and possibly put them up somewhere else. Thank you. CanbekEsen 03:15, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-16 12:53Z

Bell (surname)[edit]

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

As a list, this is an indiscriminate collection of information and redundant to search. As a dab page it's pretty much useless and redundant to more specific dab pages like Mark Bell. Why maintain this in addition to those? kingboyk 00:23, 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 & cleanup. KrakatoaKatie 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of the Universe[edit]

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

original research Nardman1 00:46, 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 deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryder McPherson[edit]

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

Almost certainly a hoax - I can't find any online references for this guy. Author has removed the hoax and proposed deletion tags, so I'm bringing it here. PC78 00:55, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-16 12:54Z

Beherit (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Beherit (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable gaming characters. I think the telling point for this one is "No canonical description is available for all these characters." Dennitalk 01:33, 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. Given that the nominator withdrew his nomination, then withdrew the withdrawal, the discussion is confusing to decipher, but there doesn't appear to be consensus to do anything. --Coredesat 01:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment disorder[edit]

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

First of all, major copyright infringement. Bulk of article is a copy-pasted copyrighted article taken from here. It was sort-of covertly added here. There has been no assurance Dr. Becker-Wiedman has released this article under the GFDL. In addition, this article is written in a non-encyclopedic tone, and advocates a specific pro-Attachment POV in many places. I think it would be better to just start over from scratch as this is such a controversial topic, and both sides seem quite entrenched. --Dwiki 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I like the reverted version, and I admit I had not closely looked at it. I'm going to archive the talk page with an explanation of the infringement, and cross my fingers that people will just start editing this new one rather than trying to resurrect the behemoth. Nomination withdrawn.--Dwiki 07:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that: Attachment disorder is a term that borders on neologism and original research. The term is in use, but many times it is used short for Reactive attachment disorder, which really exists as a medical diagnosis. Attachment disorder can also be used as a pov term to describe Attachment theory. (The findings of attachment theory are usually described as attachment styles, not attachment disorders.) Since articles on Reactive attachment disorder and Attachment theory do exist I think this article is redundant.--DorisH 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, that, too. This article is sort of a cluster-f and there seems to be a group that wants to enforce the status quo. I can't exactly explain why I experienced such a sinking feeling when I encountered this article, but I will admit my impulse was "burn it! kill!" as it hurts my brain in so many ways to think about all the issues that encumber it. As the article remains essentially the same as when I first encountered it, I have to say, I reinstate my desire to see it gone.--Dwiki 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article may benefit from some editing. I fail to see the POV...it currently represents a consensus built after extensive wrangling and the use of advocates, RfC, and mediation. The term is a broad one, without the specificity of the clinical diagnosis of Reactive Attachment Disorder (DSM-IV-R). However, it is a term that is used extensive in literature, on the web, and in various publications. As such, the term does deserve an encyclopedia article discussing the various issues involved in its use, lack of clarity of defination, etc. It is not a POV term for Attachment Theory; that is a completely different term. For these reasons it should stay.DPetersontalk 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 merge & redirect into University of Chicago. KrakatoaKatie 05:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Shady Dealer[edit]

Chicago Shady Dealer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable satyrical student newspaper established in 2005. A couple of reference links were posted after the prod was contested, but none which adequately establish public notability of the journal. Ohconfucius 02:38, 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 redirect to salt. KrakatoaKatie 05:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salt crystals[edit]

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

There is nothing but an advertisement for lamps. Cisz Helion 02:51, 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. --Coredesat 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brookside School[edit]

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

Notability not asserted and not apparent. Possible vanity. Anlace 02:51, 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. --Coredesat 01:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Satter[edit]

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

This article is about a probation officer who may well be performing a valuable service for society yet does not seem to have attained encyclopedic notability. Although this article contains six external links, none of them appear to have to do with this person. Three of those links go to the home pages of organizations he is affiliated with but with no reference to him personally. Another link [6] supposedly describes a study in which he participated, but the article at that link does not mention this person. And the remaining two links refer to a police officer in Overland Park, Kansas being honored for catching a criminal by noticing a forged license plate. However, that incident took place in the year 2000, when the subject of this article was apparently still in community college or university in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, over 400 miles away from Overland Park. Thus, the officer honored in Overland Park is most likely a different person. The article asserts that the subject's main claim to fame is his participation in a study in 2006, yet no sources have been provided that describe that study or connect him with it, nor have I found any on my own. I previously submitted this article for proposed deletion, but the WP:PROD tag was removed by the article creator. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 03:12, 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. Merging this somewhere can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Coredesat 01:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland and Labrador First Party[edit]

Newfoundland and Labrador First Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Running in one by-election with those sore results does not make this organization notable. Fails WP:ORG and google test. Delete GreenJoe 03:29, 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 and Redirect to Fatal hilarity. Cbrown1023 talk 00:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mitchell[edit]

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

Non-notable person. His death might be but it is mentioned enough in the article Fatal hilarity. In addition the whole entry seems to be a copy paste with a few minor alterations to the reference given. A copyright violation by any other name smells just as ... oh never mind.Peter Rehse 05:41, 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. --Coredesat 01:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force to Overcome Racism in Topeka[edit]

Task Force to Overcome Racism in Topeka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of this existence of this organization, certainly no reliable sources, so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Attribution Xyzzyplugh 03:35, 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 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Coyle BBC[edit]

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

Delete - not finding the independent sources that attest to the subject's notability. The page is currently sourced by the BBC page (not independent), a website for a club he's associated with and a blog. The article was written entirely by User:Mark Coyle so there are obvious WP:COI issues. Otto4711 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that a source from the BBC for someone who works for the BBC is not independent, as I noted in the nomination. Otto4711 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I consider an unverified, probably self-published bio on a BBC website to be an unreliable source and contributory to the COI problems inherent in the article. If the gentleman is notable, there should be multiple independent sources, meaning not self-published, and someone other than the subject of the article should be contributing to it. Otto4711 21:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I find your argument completely unconvincing. The BBC is not merely a reliable source, but damn near the gold standard of reliable media sources upon which we rely. Furthermore, I'm unsure what your premise is for claiming that this bio is "self-published," other than it is on the BBC website and that Coyle works for the BBC ... how many tens of thousands of employees must the Beeb have? Claiming that the BBC is unreliable just because the subject of the article works for it is a dizzying leap of logic for which I'd be interested in seeing your supporting evidence. Finally, while you lean heavily on the "independent" source argument, in point of fact, nothing in WP:ATT requires the use of independent sources having no connection to the article's subject. Using such sources should be done with caution, but "Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia ..." RGTraynor 05:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of his job is to publish material on the BBC website. That makes the BBC website, as it relates to him, self-published. I would not suggest that the BBC is not a reliable source for stories that are not about topics or persons directly related to the BBC, but in an instance of a BBC website maintainer it's not. The portion of the article talking about his leisure interests is sourced by the website for an organization of which he is the leader, which as far as I'm concerned also constitutes a self-published source. As far as using such sources go, the relevant section of WP:ATT states: "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:
it is relevant to their notability;
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
the article is not based primarily on such sources." (emphasis added)
This article is based entirely on self-published sources and the plain text of WP:ATT states that such sources are unacceptable. The article has no sources that meet WP:ATT Otto4711 12:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly possible that he put up that material. It is by no means self-evident, and you're presuming (based on what premise I cannot fathom) that the BBC is in the habit of letting its webmasters just put up anything they want without any internal controls whatsoever. Furthermore, you're leaving out the beginning sentence in your laundry list - that they pertain either to:
* "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking ... Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves;" or
* "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight."
I can think of no grounds under which a news organization with the sheer prestige of the BBC falls under either category. RGTraynor 13:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, material that has been published by the author. That's an either-or statement so if it meets either side it's self-published. It's not in the slightest unreasonable to think that a person responsible for maintaining content on the BBC website might have had something to do with writing the content of the bio found on the BBC website. You've also failed to address the fact that the remainder of the article is sourced by the website of an organization of which he is the chairman, you've failed to address the fact that there are no sources other than ones that are directly connected to the subject himself that attest to his notability and you've failed to address the conflict of interest issues. Otto4711 14:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(shrugs) The WP:COI guideline (and it is only a guideline) discourages editors with a conflict of interest; it is neither implicitly nor explicitly prima facie grounds for deletion. You have consistently refused to tender your proof that Coyle wrote that bio himself on the BBC website, and you've consistently refused to explain which, if any, biographical elements you challenge. In effect, the sole prop for your argument to delete is the premise that the BBC must be publishing lying bios about its own employees. There comes a point where common sense should apply, and we're well past it. RGTraynor 17:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, the "prop" for my belief that the article should be deleted is that there are no independent reliable sources of which he has been the primary source that attest to the subject's notability. I'm not quite clear where the breakdown in your understanding of that is. It is not a question of "challenging" specific biographical details. It is a question that the article as a whole is not properly attributed. Nor did I ever say that the COI was in and of itself grounds for deletion but it is something that should be weighed in the process rather than just dismissed with "it's just a guideline." Can I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Coyle himself sat at a comuter and typed out the BBC entry word-for-word? Of course not. But hey, common sense tells me that the guy who's responsible for maintaining the content of a website had a hand in creating the material. Otto4711 17:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if BBC is unreliable please check these:
The Telegraph
Mark Coyle
Glasgow Student
epuk.org
+ 16000 Google hits searching "Mark Coyle" + BBC
AlfPhotoman 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph item is about someone named Greg Dyke. The Motherwell Athletics Club is an organization of which Coyle is the chairman, meaning that it's not independent. The Glsgow Student item is a program booklet which mentions Coyle as one of a number of speakers, in a note that's about two paragraphs long, making it a trivial reference. And the EPUK site appears to be an email list, which is one step below a blog as far as a source goes, and I didn't notice a reference to Coyle in it anyway. None of these sources meet WP:ATT. Otto4711 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph article is a petition against the dismissal of Greg Dyke, signed by Coyle among many others, and you have surely checked all other 16000 hits? AlfPhotoman 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A petition signed by dozens or hundreds of people does not establish the notability of the people who signed it. And I'm not the one seeking to keep this article, thus it is not my responsibility to check any sources. I did in fact check several dozen Google hits before nominating the article and, as noted, did not find any sources. Otto4711 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see ... we have a PDF of a flier for a media convention in Glasgow in 2005 with Coyle as a panelist and a short bio [7] ... RGTraynor 17:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two paragraphs out of a multipage document. That would constitute a trivial mention. You'd think someone bursting with such notability would be the subject of at least one substantial reference that wasn't put up by someone with a direct connection, but it's not like standards actually matter I guess. Otto4711 17:34, 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. --Coredesat 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Sams[edit]

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

Many times, a sloppy bio is worth a cleanup, but this one is just ridiculous. It's unverified, and I'm almost certain that all or part of it is false. Note also the similarity of some text to [http://www.operationdvd.us/founders.php YechielMan 04:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as non notable and unsourced vanity article Anlace 04:51, 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. There are arguments to merge, but they would be calling for merging to an article that was also deleted in AFD, so there is nowhere to merge to, as any merge would constitute a recreation of that article. --Coredesat 01:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anya (TimeSplitters)[edit]

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

Strong Delete Non notable. I also nominate all of the following articles (please excuse the large number of articles, for so many shouldn't have been created to begin with):

Aztec Warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Badass Cyborg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bear (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brains (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amy Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Colonel (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Crispin (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Cropolite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Duckman Drake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gargoyle (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The General (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ghost (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Captain Ash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mr. Giggles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nurse Gulag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Handyman (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Corporal Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Headsprouter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Henchman (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jimmy Needles (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jungle Queen (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Khallos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Leo Krupps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dr. Lancet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Maiden (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jacque de la Morte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mox (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lenny Oldburn (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
R-100 Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hatchet Sal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Security (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Snowman (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mr. Socky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Venus Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stone Golem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Teeth Mummy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Undead Priest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mr. Underwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Viola (TimeSplitters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wood Golem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of these are Wikia caliber articles and do not need to exist. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 04:36, 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 00:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FastLife International[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Squidfryerchef 04:59, 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 for having no useful content. Friday (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8th Gaming Generation[edit]

8th Gaming Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is a blatant violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hemlock Martinis 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also the article even states that there the next gerneration consoles are not officially announced. Rumors (espically unsoured) are not enough. --70.48.110.250 06:13, 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 01:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yemassee (journal)[edit]

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

I'm not sure about the notability of this college lit journal. Some are quite well known and important but I've never heard of this one. At the least there is a WP:COI problem with someone with the same name as the reviews editor starting the article. Doubt always makes me list it here rather than speedy delete, even if I'm fairly sure of the outcome. Pigmandialogue 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pigman, literary journals achieve notability by publishing famous authors. This is not circular. It works in reverse: publications become less notable when they stop publishing famous/notable authors. What you call "fame contagion" is, in fact, the primary principle of notability for a small, tax-exempt, non-profit literary publication. In fact, such a publication cannot do much better than Yemassee has done. It is clear, that you are "not a close follower of literary journals." Another way that small literary publications achieve notability is by publishing texts that are selected for awards. See the article for new info on this front. Notice that it is cited.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Coredesat 02:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raytoons Cartoon Avenue[edit]

Raytoons Cartoon Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod (but not explained or improved). Self-published first issue of amateur comics magazine without any notable authors. No verifiable independent sources, no notability (awards, reviews, ...). 41 distinct Google hits[10], most an ad on "craigslist" indicating that it was looking for submissions. Fram 06:08, 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. --Coredesat 02:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ansem Retort[edit]

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

Webcomic with no support for notability and no third party sources. ' 06:08, 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. --Coredesat 02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bishonen characters[edit]

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

This is list that is entirely original research; there are no sources to back up the loooong list of POV claims. (And, no, random people on the Internet are not acceptable as sources, we need confirmation from people who have an actual involvement with those characters, which is exceptionally unlikely. A POV that's shared by some guy with a website is still a POV.) I have deleted a similar list from bishōnen under the same reasoning. ' 06:26, 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 Sppedy Delete - NYC JD (interrogatories) 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgecore[edit]

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

Fails WP:NN and WP:NFT. This is a neologism promoted by (as far as I can find) a single band in a single song. Selket Talk 07:27, 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 redirect to University of the Philippines Diliman. --Coredesat 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DZUP[edit]

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

Hoax article. Frequency and callsign are owned by University of the Philippines Diliman. [11] Danngarcia 07:36, 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 redirect to America Online. KrakatoaKatie 05:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AOL Pictures[edit]

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

I'm fixing an incomplete nomination. Apparently this article has been on Wikipedia for a couple of months and still is virtually devoid of content. This feature of America Online does not appear to satisfy WP:WEB on its own. --Metropolitan90 04:38, 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. --Coredesat 02:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle and Evan Do The Movies[edit]

Kyle and Evan Do The Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated for lack of notability, and kept despite WP:SPAs/sockpuppets and absence of policy-based keep arguments. Still no real assertion of notability or cited source. No attempt has been made to clean up the article since the first AFD. Mosmof 08:20, 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 delete, attack page. Kusma (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gach[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this person exists. It's rather likely that this history is entirely fictitious, concocted to impugn some unknown by this name. It fails WP:ATT and probably WP:HOAX and WP:ATTACK. Deranged bulbasaur 08:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it seems much like an attack page. SMC 09:01, 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 Speedied and protected

Paragon Partition Manager[edit]

Paragon Partition Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Speedied twice earlier as an advertisemtnt, but re-created. Non-notable software, doesn't meet any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (software). Tagged since last month, but no secondary sources or references. No assertion of notability either -- it's just one of the many such software available -- I couldn't find that should deserve it a place in Wikipedia. Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 09:41, 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. --Coredesat 02:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ailene Light[edit]

Ailene_Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well ... while I believe Snooziums has made a string of bad faith nominations, this article deserves to be shot down on the merits. Ravenswing 05:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may well be right. Once I figured out what Snooziums was doing, I just slapped the note on all of the proposed deletes. I don't really have time to check every one of these for value.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:45, 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 keep. --Coredesat 02:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aiwass[edit]

Aiwass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wups--that was me. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:46, 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 keep. KrakatoaKatie 05:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Shine[edit]

Betty_Shine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:47, 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, no consensus to redirect. Daniel Bryant 00:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biker comedy[edit]

Biker_comedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The article only notes one film of the genre, the 2007 film Wild Hogs, and we don't need "genres" for every type of movie out there— what's next, Man waving a stick comedy? --Sarcha 45 06:30, 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. --Coredesat 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeChiangcization[edit]

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

Delete - This is not a word in the English language (Google hits=0) and we should not create new words in Wikipedia. Furthermore, the article quotes no sources. The Chinese word can be moved to Wikitionary, while the substantive contents of this article can be moved to Chiang_Kai-shek#Death_and_legacy. Niohe 01:05, 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 keep. KrakatoaKatie 05:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Djwal Khul[edit]

Djwal_Khul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:47, 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. KrakatoaKatie 05:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Pierrakos[edit]

Eva_Pierrakos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:48, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite betrayal criterion[edit]

Favorite betrayal criterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

original research. see here. Yellowbeard 15:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Original research" is an outright falsehood. This is a notable criterion that can be found in articles on the internet.--Fahrenheit451 22:16, 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 redirect to Lauren Fenmore Baldwin. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fenmore Baldwin[edit]

Fenmore_Baldwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

STRONG DELETE This character is an infant who was born last October - nowhere near notable. A mention in the Michael and Lauren Baldwin articles would suffice. Kogsquinge 03:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point. Based on that, I suppose it's a possible search term for either the mother or the child, and a redirect to the mother's article, which mentions both, is appropriate. Changing my position accordingly.--21:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Kubigula (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Coredesat 02:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Higginson[edit]

Gordon_Higginson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:49, 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. KrakatoaKatie 05:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Finley[edit]

Guy_Finley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet musicians[edit]

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

This list seems rather vague as many artists these days distribute their work primarily through the web. Despite that there are only 4 entries. As the list is basically unused I suggest it should be deleted. Pontificake 16:39, 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, however I have renamed it. The confusion generated by the misspelling has tainted this AfD, making large parts of it moot (given the new references found with the correct name). Daniel Bryant 01:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Wintkowski[edit]

Mary_Ann_Wintkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

There is no assertion of notability except except to say that she "influenced" a TV show, which is nothing unique. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:50, 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. --Coredesat 02:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Wilson[edit]

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

Seems to have only voiced one cartoon character. Does this make him notable? Montchav 18:50, 9 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. I didn't delete the history so that if anyone wants to merge the article anywhere, they can from the history behind the redirect. Daniel Bryant 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N-MORB[edit]

N-MORB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is just a short definition that gives no assertion of notability. This can go on wiktionary. Theredhouse7 23:39, 9 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 00:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ogygia (Transformers)[edit]

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

Not a notable subject and no context is given. Theredhouse7 22:38, 9 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 00:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronna Herman[edit]

Ronna_Herman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:51, 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 00:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Students Confronting Apartheid in Israel[edit]

Students Confronting Apartheid in Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This organisation appears to have no third-party notability whatsoever. I asked on the talk page earlier to resounding silence ... Does anyone care outside Stanford? (Does anyone care inside Stanford?) David Gerard 00:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about that, I can't keep track of the precise invocations for AFD these days ... I'll do better next time - David Gerard 21:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New Culture Forum[edit]

The New Culture Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising. not notable. Chompzzz 18:04, 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 Hard fantasy and no consensus on Category:Hard fantasy.

Hard fantasy and Category:Hard fantasy[edit]

This term supposedly refers to "fantasy in which the world (unlike other fantasy settings) closely follows the laws of science". This term appears to be original research, and has no clear definition or difference from other genres. The Category:Hard fantasy contains many settings that are heavy with magic, such as Tolkien's and Steven Erikson's. >Radiant< 10:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing problem still exists. The first source you offer must be discounted because we don't even know what that source says. The second two you have posted are the same book, and even it is a little dubious as it admits the definition is arbitrary and perhaps even a neologism. Again with proper sourcing I'm not opposed to hanging on to this one but unfortunately all that can be found thus far is blogs or indeterminate sources. Arkyan 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, my bad, I thought I had posted a different link. [18] was the link I meant to post. Does that change things, or is a book titled Encyclopedia of Fantasy not a perfectly good source?
It looks good to me. Drop that in there and the article does need a little cleanup but that should source it sufficiently. Changing my opinion to keep based on the addition of these references to the article, though it's still in need of cleanup. Arkyan 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already added it actually. And yes, I do agree it needs cleanup, and expansion, but being a stub is not a reason to delete. FrozenPurpleCube 21:01, 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 - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuickBooks[edit]

Contested prod. Accounting software, with no references other than its own website. It reads like a marketing blurb and plausibly a copyvio, and appears to be promotive rather than encyclopedic. >Radiant< 10:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom nodes[edit]

Alleged to be a common term in webdesign, but it doesn't google. Appears to be a neologism, and at any rate the article has little if any encyclopedic content. >Radiant< 10:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Jerry Mandracchia[edit]

John Jerry Mandracchia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nice guy, I'm sure, but doesn't seem like a notable encyclopedia topic Guroadrunner 10:59, 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Melendez-Perez[edit]

Jose Melendez-Perez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

9/11 oriented article not even linked to 9/11 article. Is linked to "List of Puerto Ricans". Questionable notability, could be 9/11 researcher fancruft. Guroadrunner 10:52, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faheem Shuaibe[edit]

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

Questionable notability. It is true he is a notable imam, but how notable is he for Wikipedia? Guroadrunner 10:42, 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 delete. Several requests for merging "salvageable material" but no one has even argued that any of it is salvageable. Mangojuicetalk 04:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fort on mysterious appearances and disappearances[edit]

Charles Fort on mysterious appearances and disappearances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Charles Fort coined the term "teleportation" to cover mysterious appearances and disappearances of people or objects" Sounds like original research to me. I don't think there's need for a separate article to explain what mr. Fort thinks about disappearances. >Radiant< 11:04, 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 speedied as CSD A7. No credible assertion of notability. Kafziel Talk 14:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Rutkowski[edit]

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

Hoax. Copy-paste of Gilbert Brown. Vandalism only author. Deprodded. Weregerbil 11:17, 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 speedy deleted by Irishguy[19]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Child Chapel International[edit]

Holy Child Chapel International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability of this particular religion - most hits on Google relate to the Wikipedia page. An expert in religion like Essjay ? would be good to see if this is a notable branch of Christianity. Article reads like an advertisement, too. -- Guroadrunner 11:38, 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 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TrustedPlaces[edit]

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

This article poses a conflict of interest, as the originating editor is also apparantly one of the founders of the venture. The content is mostly speculative, considering that the working reference describes the site as being in "open beta" therefore it fails WP:CRYSTAL. The article mentions that they attracted some venture capital, but there's no indication that the website itself is notable, only perhaps the funding thereof. It's not even a particularly large amount of venture capital. The website itself appears non-notable, and the links that might confirm notability are broken. Wikipedia is not a place for you to garner publicity for your web 2.0 startups. Deranged bulbasaur 12:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The non-functional link I'm referring to is the guardian one. The others appear to be websites that afford specialty coverage to "social networking." Deranged bulbasaur 12:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, changing my view to a weak keep. I've corrected the Guardian link so that it works, and the site also gets a mention in The Register's list of the UK's top 25 web startups. I won't be upset if this does get deleted, but I would suggest the closing admin take a look at the sources before making a decision. Verifiable = yes. Notable = maybe. Conflict of interest = yes. It's a fine judgement call. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:16, 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 without merge or redirect. --Coredesat 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalist slavery[edit]

POV essay. Probably original research Alex Bakharev 12:52, 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 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fflam[edit]

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

Was prod'd, prod removed with hours to go. This advertises a future event which has not yet happened: not a crystal ball. The page was updated today, the same day as press release went out. Telsa (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a substantial event, worthy of having a page. It will be searched for by more people as it gains fame. If it were to be cancelled, then the article should be deleted. —The preceding borobarmy comment was added by Borobarmy (talk • contribs) 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I came across this article just before it was originally prod'd. The results were rather different that day. Note that you are performing a news search on the day that all the papers ran the same story, so I think it coincides with them all getting the same press release.. Telsa (talk) 21:32, 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 keep. KrakatoaKatie 05:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Oyler[edit]

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

Article is about a person who died of a disease and the subsequent books and life stories about dealing his disease, I'm pretty sure that there hundreds of similar situations as this, so notability is questioned Janarius 13:44, 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 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Cunningham-Eves[edit]

Katherine Cunningham-Eves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Found this on ProD patrol. Can't decide upon the level of notability here, although IMdB entry is quite long. Bubba hotep

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight Simulator Flight Extras

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 00:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K. K. Dodds[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This actress has only appeared in minor film and TV roles, failing WP:BIO. Very little biographical information is available which fails WP:BLP. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:01, 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. KrakatoaKatie 05:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Kilgariff[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Actress has appeared in a few TV shows and films, mostly in minor roles. Was also a writer for The Ellen Degeneres Show, but these credits do not meet WP:BIO. Additionally, there is little biographical information available violating WP:BLP. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:10, 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 Redirect to Belt (clothing). Cbrown1023 talk 01:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Studded Belt[edit]

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

No content of any value, nothing links here, what is the point? Egil 15:45, 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 Gnangarra 12:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Island Challenge[edit]

Shark Island Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wholly unreferenced article about a competition with a AU$1,000 (insert US$6,000) top prize. Delete - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 16:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However - when the prize reaches $1 mil (AUD or otherwise) there is usually no shortage of information which easily meets the requirements of WP:ATT, unlike Shark Island Challenge website Garrie 02:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Golden Wattle talk 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm currently with a lack of time to work here. I'm so sure this is a notable competition but I will have to find more sources to back it up, so I would ask for you guys not to settle this AfD without giving me time to convince you :-) I have spent too much effort on this article, and I think it deserves more consideration. I myself own 4 commercial DVDs from the 2001 to 2004 competitions. I really don't know how could this not be notable. Keep the discussion, but give me more time. Regards Loudenvier 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think by self-referential he is referring to Shark Island Challenge#References 1-10, from Shark Island Challenge website.Garrie 02:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think references about wave conditions, prize, rankings, etc. should come not from the primary source? But I understand that these references alone does not prove the notability of the event. But User:Golden Wattle gave some external links (one from Billabong, a surfing giant company), and they were all dismissed. I think this article should be tagged for expansion rather than deletion. I had it tagged as a stub in the past because it lacked completeness, but another user removed the tag. Loudenvier 20:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: People do not want to take the notability of this event in bodyboarding from the IBA site International Bodyboarding Association. It is the same as denying that an statement of an authoritative association like FIFA is not reliable. IBA is the authoritative association of bodyboarding in the world, it has the final word on rules and which competitions count to the tour. For example, the Shark Island Challenge here in question is the one with the biggest point award, which means that it's most important event in the World Tour which is the only tour for international bodyboarding akin to the Association of Surfing Professionals tour for surfing. By the way the articles about the World Tour and IBA are still lacking information, they are all stubs right now. Regards Loudenvier 20:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few other links that could fare better in proving notability:
Loudenvier 21:04, 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 Speedy delete g10 attack; will create new redirect to Forced conversion. NawlinWiki 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert or die[edit]

Convert or die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This does not read like any sort of encyclopedic article, nor does the framing of the article (its title, scope, and so on) seem particularly useful. At best, this is a series of thoughts and ideas (presented in an argumentative or persuasive style) that might be relevant to various articles on religion and politics. I notice a link was also inserted somewhat awkwardly into the middle of a paragraph in the Mandaeism article. GenkiNeko 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic. Reads like the awkward answer to an essay question on a test ("Define 'convert or die'"). Style issues aside, Wikipedia already has an article on Forced conversion and this article really has no useful content that would add to it. janejellyroll 17:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NamePros[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:CORP and isn't even barely notable. Delete GreenJoe 22:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable and fails to meet WP:CORP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 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, Veinor (talk to me) 16:55, 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. --Coredesat 02:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tankmania Tips+tricks[edit]

Tankmania Tips+tricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page is a player's guide for an admittedly obscure Flash game (article says it has 200 players). If the game were notable enough for Wikipedia, the player's guide still wouldn't belong here. ArglebargleIV 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment which deletion criteria from WP:CSD would you apply for a speedy delete? It does not appear to meet the speedy delete criteria. -- Whpq 21:16, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Coredesat 02:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie force[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable film. Only 6 Google results for " Zombie force"+McKeller and 4 for "Zombie force"+Gizmo. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 18:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Where was it screened in Scarborough? When was it discussed on Radio York? What did they say? What awards has this Martin Rodgers won – specifically for his documentary on leaf migration in Cambodia? Where are the sources that substantiate the film's notability? ... discospinster talk 00:10, 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 Keep Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racial memory[edit]

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

The article is totally unsupported by WP:reliable sources. It's a mish-mash of article fragments with a long history of POV, and OR problems (see article talk page) all tangentially related to the subject outlined in the lead section. The only section of the article that has any real redeeming qualities only duplicates material properly presented in the collective unconscious article. Perfectly valid articles on epigenetics, maternal effects, maternal impression, and collective unconscious exist, but joining them all together without secondary sources into this article is simply WP:SYNT. Pete.Hurd 18:02, 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 01:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceful Meadows Farm[edit]

Peaceful Meadows Farm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Seems to exist solely to draw attention to a small ice cream show in Pennsylvania. No sources are given to prove notability. —Ocatecir Talk 18:29, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 09:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Baseball Channel[edit]

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

Crystal ball, same reason Baseball Channel was deleted Milchama 18:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Follow-up Comment - There is still no official announcement. MLB previously announced plans for a network in 04, but then abandoned them for a proposed network with Fox, before this DirecTV discussion begun. The NBA and Time Warner announced a joint sports network in 2002, but that didn't materialize either. I feel that there needs to be more concrete info outside of the DirecTV deal before this proposed, yet-unnamed channel should have its own article. Milchama 20:05, 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 —dgiestc 02:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2018 asian games[edit]

2018 asian games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Despite being inaccurately titled (the article says the games will be held in 2011), Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Ocatecir Talk 18:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics.
This article about a future Asian Games is reasonable, IMO, as it discusses only things which are currently known. These games are likely to take place, and the article will likely expand as they get closer.
Incidentally, the article does not say the games will be held in 2011, it says "The host city will be announced in the Olympic Council of Asia's general assembly in summer of 2011."
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Mygind[edit]

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

Possible/probable hoax article. Only gets 18 google hits and no sources cited. His supposed book title gets 0 hits. Delete as not verifiable/hoax. Wickethewok 18:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrasone Headphone Technologies[edit]

Ultrasone Headphone Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a advertisement of several technologies by Ultrasone. I have added a brief mentioning of their S-Logic to the article on Virtual surround. This should suffice --- I see no reason of having a separate article on technologies employed by this company Yavrey (est vrai) 19:16, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 per guidelines. Disruptive nom, too soon after previous AfDs, nobody other than nominator is recommending deletion. Trebor 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay controversy[edit]

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

Article is unencyclopedic, and we don't need to publicize internal strifes to the entire world. Let's see if we can get it deleted this time, if not, hopefully we will in the end. TMF Information 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Articles for deletion This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
I also would like to ask for a CU on the nominator who meanwhile re-added a pre-formatted block of content to the article which has been repeatedly rm'd by consensus.Gwen Gale 20:02, 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 01:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Garnett[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is her parents and aunt. No sources Dalejenkins 19:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many notable prizes give you a tin medal and a warm handshake with an invitation to please pay for your own meal at the awarding ceremony.... AlfPhotoman 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there multiple independent reliable sources that attest to the claim that the award is the most prestigous of its type in England? I looked at a few dozen sources and could not find any that mentioned the award in that context or much beyond any context other than being trivially noted in articles about various recipients. Otto4711 15:00, 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.

Delete: not a notable person.Oldmark 20:13, 12 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. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Les Pages Jèrriaises[edit]

Les Pages Jèrriaises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This website's subject is notable, but is the site itself notable? Contested speedy, so moving here. No opinion from nominator. NawlinWiki 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to show its notability—it's the most prominent site by far for the Jèrriais language (and gets over 24,000 hits on Google). It is an important repository of old Jèrriais texts (some published, some unpublished), and it has been used extensively by those trying to work with Jèrriais who do not live on-island. I wrote up the article because I felt that it would be informative and that it deserves a little treatment here on Wikipedia. The Jade Knight 21:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, Jersey isn't part of the UK, though it's a British Isle. The Jade Knight 21:44, 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 01:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korzulot[edit]

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

Appears to be either a hoax or OR. No sources cited, only Google-hits (all 56 of them) are Wikipedia or mirrors. --Miskwito 20:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Tan[edit]

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

References not provided. Could not find sources to back up the claim. Fails WP:N; plus too short to be of any real value. --soumসৌমোyasch 20:25, 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. If you prefer "no consensus," fine, but the keep arguments have gone unanswered.

Fritz Klein (actor)[edit]

Fritz Klein (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. NN Lincoln impersonator. Has made some appearances on TV and one straight to video film, but his credits do not pass WP:BIO. Little biographical info on him thus violating WP:BLP. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:30, 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. Mangojuicetalk 04:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yates[edit]

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

Contested PROD. NN actress with minor credits, most notable for not getting a role in the film Showgirls. Does not pass WP:BIO and the lack of biographical information violates WP:BLP. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her appearence on the CSI: LA final episode from the 5th season does not qualify her to be on Wikipedia???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.138.56 (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2008 (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. --Coredesat 03:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Vid[edit]

Sex Vid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Nmajdan's recent edit noting that this article fails A7 works, and qualifies the article for speedy deletion, and, honestly, as long as it is deleted, I don't care if it's speedy or not. Kntrabssi
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Coredesat 03:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Darren Scale[edit]

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

No sources given, no Google hits. Possible hoax. Jvhertum 21:42, 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 delete. We've waited long enough for sources. Daniel Bryant 01:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FEATS (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

This is a resubmission. The previous AfD discussion resulted in no consensus (with limited participation). Closing admin recommended resubmission if the article was not fixed in due time. After 3 months, the article still remains largely the product of a conflict of interest per this discussion on my talk page archive with the article creator. Notability is difficult to establish with good attribution by multiple reliable sources. All together, deletion without prejudice for a new and more neutral article is recommended. ju66l3r 22:01, 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Then There Were 10[edit]

And Then There Were 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Pure episode summary of an episode of Ben 10, delete as indiscriminate collection of information, article does not establish notability outside of the TV show. Phirazo 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The above goes for any show at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pacific Coast Highway (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment The series is notable. This individual episode is not. Also, this AfD is not about deleting all Ben 10 episode articles; this individual episode can be delinked in the appropriate places. -- Phirazo 01:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote from WP:NOT: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." I don't see any "real-world context" or "sourced analysis", and I doubt there ever could be any. --[[[User:Phirazo|Phirazo]] 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll try this again. You want to delete this article citing it as "indiscriminate information". Then by your definition, all the episodes should be put up for deletion, since they follow the same format. You also say that this is not notable. Care to explain how it's not, seeing as it's the pilot episode and serves as the basis of the entire show? It's one thing to cite policy, it's another thing to prove where it violates it. Pacific Coast Highway {The internet • runs on Rainbows!} 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. This is not a mass AfD. Please discuss whether or not this article should be deleted. 2. The episode in question is non-notable because there are not enough reliable, 3rd party sources to write an article. 3. The article is a scene-by-scene plot summary of a TV episode. If that is all it will ever be, then it falls under WP:NOT. --Phirazo 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did I say that this was a mass AfD? I only said that if you're going to can this one, can them all since they fall into the same category that you have placed this one in. But I do credit you for giving an explanation. My stance still stands. I also took the time to read some of the discussions surrounding this issue and they all seem to agree that AfD's like this will cause more harm than good. And TV.com no longer counts as a independent source? I'd like to note that the notabilty guidelines state "seconday sources". Not Third party. Pacific Coast Highway {The internet • runs on Rainbows!} 03:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to point you to another nomination you have made, which led to "no consensus" on the subject. There has been no agreement that it does fall into "indiscriminate information", only subjective opinion. In fact, most of the delete votes were made as a result of misreading or by ignoring parts of the policy. This debate will most likely conclude in the same fashion. Pacific Coast Highway {The internet • runs on Rainbows!} 03:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to the TV.com summary is here. TV.com is not a reliable source (especially for "sourced analysis", which this article is sorely lacking), since most of the content comes from general users. --Phirazo 04:47, 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 keep. Daniel Bryant 09:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal branding (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

linkspam, no cleanup in almost a year, pure abuse of wikipedia regardless of merits of article. The previous debate focused simply on merits of the article, rather than the content. Just because an article should exist, doesn't mean we should retain one filled with linkspam which no one but the spammers care about. --Mattarata 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 keep, no consensus to merge. Any further merge proposals (outside of this AfD, in the future) should take place on the talk page (more information at WP:MM#Proposing a merger). However, there is no consensus to merge as a result of this debate; that's not to say that further discussion to try and develop a consensus either way won't be beneficial. Daniel Bryant 09:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Grimes[edit]

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

This is a one episode character from the Simpsons. He has no real notability besides the one episode, his arguably notable death, and a few cameos(by family and grave). The article should be merged/redirected to the episode he comes from or an appropriate character list. Nemu 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I had no clue that existed. I usually see people use this for things like this. Nemu 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that it was a problem article, so I decided to put it here. I really don't see how any of that earns him a page. That should be what places him apart from nameless characters. Even then, the bulk of the page is a plot summary and trivial cameos, basically the same thing as a list entry linking to the episode article. Nemu 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So? Then you slap a clean up tag on it, you don't nominate it for deletion. I think The Simpsons WikiProect has pretty good about merging character pages (there are about 80 right now and I have plans to merge another 10), but I really do think that Grimes is a standout. It also isn't easy to merge pages considering that we're supposed to keep the one-time and recurring character lists short, but they fill up fast. -- Scorpion 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope you're not planning to say that Kwyjibo's vote doesn't count just because he made a prediction. Anton Mravcek 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote. If the user doesn't have a quality argument, their "vote" is lower than someone who gave a sound argument. His "vote" is entirely based on both "I like this article" and original research. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Leno goes 'jaywalking' and asks about Damocles, most people won't know. If they do know, they probably know because of The Simpsons. Ask them about Frank Grimes, and you'll get more correct answers than asking for Damocles. So no, at no point will they even be in the same situation. Grimes is much better known by the American proletariat than Damocles will ever hope to be. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they know who Frank Grimes is, yes. The fact of the matter is that even despite that, Damocles deserves an article much more. The only arguments for Frank Grimes are popularity and "I like it", while those against it have redundancy to the episode's article combined with lack of a significant role in the series. Major popularity, minor importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:01, 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 Keep. —dgiestc 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Patient[edit]

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

Page for a non-notable television show. Has been deleted per proposed deletion twice and now recreated, so the deletion is contested. The article was deleted per AfD before but about a My Chemical Romance related character.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:23, 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. Daniel Bryant 09:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Estes[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. There are no secondary reliable sources to confirm notablity. Second it seems the only thing he is famous for is converting to Islam, which does NOT prove notability. Sefringle 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Primary criterion. It says: person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.
A student newspaper is not not reliable because a student is not an expert. Anyone who goes to that school, whether a student or a professor can create a page on anything, and post it on the school website. Just because it is there does not make it reliable.--Sefringle 03:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have any links to any of these sites for the purpose of Verifiability?--Sefringle 07:29, 18 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Faruq Abd-Allah[edit]

Umar Faruq Abd-Allah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to confirm notability. Second, the google search [34] under his name only turned up about 600 hits for this person. Sefringle 23:33, 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 per WP:CSD#G7.· j e r s y k o talk · 15:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motifs in William Hope Hodgson's Fiction[edit]

Motifs in William Hope Hodgson's Fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is pure original research, made evident by the lack of sources cited. Anything that can be cited could likely be discussed at William Hope Hodgson if it is not already. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:33, 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