< March 15
March 17 >
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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paintmash[edit]

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

Neologism? Google yields fewer than 5,000 hits (Yahoo! yielding only half that), so notability and verifiability are significant questions. Is this a common term? --Stratadrake 00:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as above. Manik Raina 09:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROH Alumni[edit]

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

Serves no real purpose as it was already listed on Ring of Honor roster and removed to create this page. I've already re-added it to ROH roster page. PepsiPlunge 00:31, 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 Speedy delete. Tyrenius 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Howell (footballer)[edit]

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

Not notable. Only played for minor clubs. Epbr123 00:34, 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 the merge option was discussed immediately prior to this AfD on the article talk page and rejected. Gnangarra 11:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Chaos[edit]

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

No independent references given for the subject. The external links given at the bottom of the article are entirely for the game Total Chaos, which has it's own article (the homepage link for this programming team being broken.) Merge proposal met with hostility from two new users, so thought I would bring it to articles for discussion. I'll also note that the two card games listed under 'remakes' are in no way, shape or form remakes of this piece of software. Marasmusine 00:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Moderator User Marasmusine the original proposer of this article for deletion now states "My proposal is a merge, not a delete". Therefore please remove this from AfD without further ado. SuperfrogJumps 09:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, except you keep blocking attempts at any discussion on a merge. Still, I don't want to be accused of a bad faith nomination, so I won't mind if the moderator wants to move this discussion elsewhere. Marasmusine 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is a merge, not a delete; since you wouldn't allow the merge proposal tag to stay up for even a day (along with other maintaince tags and even this CfD tag), that's why I've brought it to Articles for Discussion.
Let me make my proposal again; the entirity of the Team Chaos page talks about the Total Chaos series of games (and provides no references for Team Chaos themselves). Why not merge that information into the Total Chaos article? It's not uncommon to have a single page represent a series of games; Sangokushi for example. The Team Chaos article shows that the games have the same basic gameplay, but with each iteration improving on the graphics and features, so should be resonably easy to set up (especially if the 'Rules of the game' section is trimmed down.) Marasmusine 07:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, if there is a magazine article on Team Chaos then that needs to be linked on the page (despite all my 'smooth moves', I'm not psychic.) Marasmusine 07:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have falsely accused me of being a SPA. That makes you a troll. GreatGianaSister 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He just means your edit summary shows mostly edits to the articles in question, please don't take it personally. Marasmusine 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except you can't read it without extracting the file. Needs to be posted in text format on the web somewhere to be a valid more useful link. EliminatorJR Talk 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Why? Web resources are more convenient, but it's certainly not the case that a source needs to be on the web in plain text to be "valid". Most of our best sources (traditionally published journals) are not online at all, in fact. — brighterorange (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I realise this, but to be honest I was trying to help the nominator - "valid" wasn't the right word to use. But it wouldn't take long to copy the text file to somewhere more accessible. EliminatorJR Talk 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I downloaded the file in 2 seconds on my WindowsXP machine. Then I single clicked on 'open' the file in the FireFox downloads window and found the interview. You don't really need to 'extract' anything on a properly configured WindowsXP machine. At first I was tempted to copy & paste the whole interview into the wikipedia but it is copyrighted. I could make use of the Fair Use provision of the United States Copyright Act to copy & paste a quote or two if you really want me to? GreatGianaSister 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • YAY Suprerfrog! Thank you so much for finding that interview! I thought it was lost forever when Amiga Arena went down! GreatGianaSister 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stand by that edit, and what I said in the summary: (WP:NOT; rm playing instructions, vanity, some informalities etc. Also probably no need for the full spell list.) Marasmusine
Was just scratching my head over the 'table of contents' there; it was automatically taken out after I tidied up the headings - I didn't deliberatly introduce a noTOC template or anything. I still think my revision was better. Marasmusine 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the edit summary; didn't see the point in listing one AGA game, especially as it seems to suggest that none of the other games could be AGA. Marasmusine 15:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware of No Personal Attacks, an official policy on the English Wikipedia, and note that Wikilawyering is looked down upon by the community. Orderinchaos78 10:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is very hard to sort out with the warring going on, I'll have a go. If I haven't summarised someone's contribution, it's because I believe the person's original comment spoke for itself.
Based on the above the consensus appears to be delete on the grounds of notability and attributability (which replaces WP:V), two key Wikipedia policies. Several of the points and discussion areas above defending the article's continued existence seem to concern areas which wander into original research, cannot be verified by any means against independent secondary sources, or what Wikipedia is not. Interviews with the creator or link lists don't actually satisfy the requirements. Orderinchaos78 10:37, 21 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 (see discussion, previous nom). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Godwin's Law[edit]

Godwin's Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Evergreens78 02:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC) — User:Evergreens78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This term has gotten enough mileage and repetition that people will likely want to have a place to look it up. I don't see why wikipedia should get rid of it. 130.179.253.138 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Epbr123, where do you get the idea that "Wired"[2] magazine and "Reason"[3] magazine are not reliable print sources? That's two, that's multiple, and that's enough. Noroton 02:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wired article was writen by Godwin himself so is not independant. The Reason article states that Mike Godwin is now a Reason contributing editor, so this is not independant either. Epbr123 03:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or would you prefer The Washington Post? "There is a dictum in Internet culture called Godwin's Law (after Mike Godwin, a lawyer who coined the maxim), ..."[4]Noroton 02:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's only one reliable, independent piece of coverage. One more needed to make it multiple coverage. Epbr123 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, speedy keep but JJL, that has to be the worst AfD/notability reasoning I've seen to date. Have you actually read WP:N? Do you really think the genuine trash articles that reappear in just-different-enough form to escape WP:SD are suddenly "notable" when they get (rightly) AfDed again? edit conflict - this is going in after the close. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

114th United States Congress[edit]

114th United States Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm somewhat unsure of this article. Sure, the 114th Congress will happen, but it won't start until 2015. There won't be any reliable information on who's running, who will be there, etc. for at least another five years. PTO 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but that's not a reason to delete it.Sylvain1972 20:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snork (musical)[edit]

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

Fails WP:RS; there is no external coverage of this musical and it doesn't seem nearly recognized enough to meet notability standards. Crystallina 02:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising by the Seven Network[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advertising by Westpac. Andjam 02:27, 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 KEEP. Since nomination, the article has been somewhat rewritten to remove the attack tone. The article is certainly referenced. Is the person notable? I would say that being notorious is not the same as being notable, but that argument was not made. Most every commentor conceded his notability. Does the article violate WP:BLP? In my view it does not, being rigorously referenced. I did not even count the votes because of the many puppets, but base the close strictly on strength of argument, which falls to the Keep view in my opinion. Herostratus 13:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Serin[edit]

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

Massive, well-referenced attack page. The history is filled with too many anon edits to accurately sort out, but in its current state this article is in dire violation of BLP. The sheer amount of personal details (more like documented stalking) disclosed makes this article a candidate for deletion and oversight intervention. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (Note: nomination was based on this revision) (Note 2: article is possibly the result of a vendetta documented at www.exurbannation.blogspot.com - see afd talk) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

189.146.102.89 05:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC) *Keep. Casey Serin is famous. He has been on TV, the news. He has a blog. His case is relevant to society. It's not a vendetta - it's an accurate reflection of his actions. --— 189.146.102.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Most of the facts can be verified from Serin's own blog. I don't think any set of facts would be terribly flattering towards him, but he has achieved quite a bit of notoriety, so he meets eligibility requirements for a Wiki article, and it shouldn't be deleted. 12.215.162.213 03:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC) — 12.215.162.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Personal blogs are not a reliable source. Serin's blog, in particular, provides only primary information and is bound to be biased. To attempt to manufacture notoriety by engineering an attack page is exactly the worst method of creating a Wikipedia article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.106.162.29 (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Many of the facts in the article are verifiable via the linked public newspaper articles and linked public records. Photographic evidence exists for many of the ancillary facts (i.e. Jamba Juice, Macaroni Grill, The Murse, The Million Dollar Home). If there is a single statement in the article that you do not find credible, note it. You are making an argument to remove an article based on the fact that you don't find the content credible and have yet to point out a single part of it that is not credible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.162.29 (talk • contribs) — 70.106.162.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
User:70.106.162.29, please see Negative_proof. SkipSmith 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:SkipSmith, please understand that the burden of proof falls on the accuser. A lack of evidence for the delete crowd does provide strength to the keep crowd. Snu164 03:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof actually falls on the guy making the unlikely claim. 129.186.205.84 19:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, a person has claimed that this article should be removed due to NPOV and Resource issues, and has not given specific examples. Snu164 23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, this article is basically libel bait. Over the past two hours I've seen editors add and subtract personal information, baseless speculation, and random accusations. The tone of this article is nowhere near Wikipedia standards for neutrality. I don't much care if the content is credible, my concern is that this is a biography tailored for the sole reason of disparaging its subject. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for character assassination, and the massive involvement by various blogs is detrimental to building any sort of encyclopedic article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I see virtually no discussion of real estate lending practices in this article, but quite a bit of mudslinging. Saranary 03:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Right now its little more than a liability. Serin's story is interesting, but not because of him as a person. Journalist coverage indeed used him as a "posterboy" to illustrate the volatile and absurd state of the real estate market. In a surprising (and not a little narcissistic) twist, Serin embraced this image, and created a blog. All of the negative comments, the structure, research, and defacement of his article are the result of this circus. There are hundreds of speculators who are in debt because of stupid business decision, singling Sarin out to illustrate the phenomenon is simply a poor basis for establishing a fair biography. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's nothing inherently notable about Serin, except that other people have decided to talk about him. I guess that makes him the Paris Hilton of real estate --- famous for being famous. But if people are talking about him, that makes him notable, even if by more objective standards he's not unusual. SkipSmith 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depends, do claims of dubious notoriety trump the BLP/NPOV requirements of neutrality and doing no harm? Plenty of people were talking about Brian Peppers at one point, yet his article was little more than a freakshow. I'd rank Serin's claim of notability somewhere above Peppers' and quite a ways below Paris Hilton's. Hilton, at least, has a widely documented public image and a mainstream modelling/acting career. Serin has a series of technologically adept bloggers who actively maintain a clearly outlined smear campaign. I sure as hell wouldn't want to monitor this article for impropriety if it is kept, I'd go insane after a day's worth of back-and-forth edits! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear from the discussion at the Exurban Nation blog (linked in the afd-talk page) that there will be a concerted effort to continue adding information that contravenes BLP/NPOV policies for at least the near future. Saranary 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that too --- I just went to Exurban Nation and read the comments section regarding this article. It looks like a bunch of people on both sides are intent on having a pissing match over here, so it might be worth protecting the page for a week or two until the kids get bored and go away. SkipSmith 05:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. The subject is relevant enough to warrant his own page though it might be wise to protect the article until the vandalstorm dies down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.174.10.135 (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC).— 70.174.10.135 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete this garbage. None of it can be verified.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.10.76 (talk • contribs) — 64.121.10.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Which substantial portion is unverified? Seems to me that the vast majority is well cited from either creditable newspapers or from Serin's words himself. Snu164 18:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)snu164 — Snu164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Have you watched the episode in question? It may very well contain every piece of this information (however unlikely that is) Kopf1988 05:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bite. What episode of which show are you talking about? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV/BLP issues existed before Serin asked his readers to modify his entry, though. His blog post about the Wikipedia entry is dated 14 March 2007. Versions dated from February to 12 March have these issues as well. 129.186.205.84 15:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we edit it to neutrality. Considering that Serin is relatively famous and an very telling example of the subprime meltdown, which is a very hot and current topic in the US, the article should be kept. I dont have a problem editing it down to a more neutral tone, but much of what was on there prior was a stub entry, last I had seen it before this mess. In addition, we cant blame all the edits on exurban. Serin opened up his blog to unmoderated comments for a few hours once, and the vehement posted was NOTHING like we're seeing here. If it helps I would gladly add in the foreclosure notices with his name on them, or the courthouse docs.--Jerichohill817 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC) — Jerichohill817 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

of the Trillion dollar real estate disaster. It is outrageous that people could get houses and mortgages on no more then their say so. While Serin is a fool, far more malevolent criminals used this same environment to strip billions in wealth from our society. To document how one fool could get over $2 Million in debt serves to show how weak the system is. It was harder to buy a car in 2005 then to buy a house." (Note: This entry does not have a signature, and may be the first half of the post by User:70.105.158.193 below. SkipSmith 20:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Saying that it's difficult not to make the article biased because the authors will inevitably demand justice/retribution from the subject is not a good argument for keeping it, in my opinion. Quite the opposite. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for revenge fantasies. 129.186.205.84 17:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find Nigel on the page. I assume this has been fixed. Snu164 03:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be a lot of single-purpose ips/accounts on this discussion... you should go through and tag them with ((subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional])) per the template at the top of the discussion. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done ... for now. SkipSmith 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. *Wiki has "jumped the shark" on this issue. The editors have removed reference to am incriminating video by the subject himself. Perhaps wiki would consider removing any pictures from the biographies of living artists as irellevant to their personal stories? The video documents. The editors need reconsider whether they are hiding behind neutrailty when in fact they are sanitizing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.84.154.217 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC). — 75.84.154.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I can see your point about Serin becoming the face of the real estate meltdown. The biggest problem with this article in its current form is that many of its inflammatory assertions have been sourced to Serin's blog, Ramit's blog, the Exurban Nation blog, other real estate blogs, google caches and Usenet. All of these are considered unreliable sources, as per WP:ATTR, and cannot be used to support negative claims about a living person. Information gleaned from the news stories may be cited, of course. Saranary 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Because so much of the story comes out of IAFF we are in murky ground in WP:ATTR between "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" where "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it" and "the article is not based primarily on such sources". Are there other blog-centric pages where this has been well hashed out for precedence? --Jake
  • The only one I could find was Kaycee Nicole, a blogger who claimed to be a high school girl suffering from leukemia. It's not a great precedent, since her story turned out to be a hoax. The practical upshot is that the article is now based on a Wired article and a Snopes.com summary of the story, rather than quotes from the blog itself. Hope that helps. Saranary 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jason Fortuny was deleted for attribution issues (blogs/craigslist). It's since been merged with Internet privacy. 129.186.205.84 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you say that it is, primarily, an attack page? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a regular reader of Serin's blog and of Wikipedia (though rarely a contributor here), I would say the article accurately reflects the public persona Casey Serin has created for himself. He has built a popular blog by continually aggravating his readers, who in turn post sarcastic, hateful, and humorous responses which he allows through moderation. The article here is kind to him, compared to his own blog. 66.75.58.180 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Lee Reeves — User:66.75.58.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • So you're basically saying that Serin is a troll responsible for manufacturing his notoriety. The Wikipedia article is an indulgent response to the baiting, and it is neutral because it rightfully defames him as a self-important flim-flam artist. Are you sure you don't have Wikipedia confused with Encyclopedia Dramatica? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you've captured the Casey Serin story exactly. But in just five minutes I found Wikipedia articles on Derek Smart, Paris Hilton, Kato Kaelin, Linda Tripp, and Frenchie Davis, so I'm inclined to believe eliding the Encyclopedia Dramatica is going to be a big job.66.75.58.180 05:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC) — User:66.75.58.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Serin is no troll. His real estate dealings are very real. His notoriety stems from the fact that he has brazenly admitted to mortgage fraud, not just on his blog but to major media outlets as well, and has yet to face any consequences. People follow his story to see what will happen to him because many have committed the same offenses on a smaller scale. 205.212.74.143 05:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC) — User:205.212.74.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As far as what the article should say, and what references should be acceptable: this is a strange situation. Serin freely admits (on his blog, of course) to things that would be libelous if you accused someone of them. The anti-self-published guidelines on WP:BLP are written to prevent Wikipedia from propagating someone's self-promotion. They don't seem to mention what to do about self-defamation. 24.91.135.162 04:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information in the table is almost completely unsourced. Dates and prices of sale are public records and should be able to be cited with reputable (non-blog) sources. Is there any reliable corroboration for the information from the W2 income/cash back columns - say, newspaper articles or television interviews? 129.186.205.84 19:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand, the article on Baron Munchausen does not uncritically accept his stories of his own adventures as fact. We need to keep the reliability of the narrator in mind here, especially as previous contributors to this article have suggested that Serin may exaggerate his financial woes or bait his audience for additional publicity. Saranary 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Fortuny had admitted to a great number of embarrassing and possibly illegal activities in his own livejournal, and these were quoted in the Wikipedia article. Ultimately the consensus was that Fortuny's livejournal was not a reliable source.129.186.205.84 20:30, 21 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 08:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Quicksilver[edit]

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

Original Research. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Extensive fancruft - Concerns about problems with the article have been discussed on Talk:Project Quicksilver before. The article was tagged over a year ago for lack of references/sources, but then the article's creator soon removed the tag without adding a single reference. The tag was replaced, but removed again. Since then no attempt has been made to fix any of the problems with the article, although I don't believe they can be fixed, so deletion is long overdue.

I also oppose merging into The Invisible Man (2000 TV series), as the problems of violating WP:NOR will still apply. I also oppose any redirect - this has been attempted several times by various other editors, but the redirects have always been removed, and probably will again. Saikokira 02:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. A television episode is a primary source, and citing information from it would violate WP:NOR. Any information would need to cite a reliable, published source. Saikokira 06:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's not go overboard on avoiding primary sources. To quote Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary and secondary sources: "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." It doesn't require a specialist to quote lines from a TV show. On the other hand, creating a chapter-length article out of such material is an outrageous abuse of this idea. That's why I believe using a few of the most important statements from this article, backed up by specific episode/scene citations, can be of use to The Invisible Man (2000 TV series). But I can understand if folks don't want to support this. It would be useful if the editor(s) who have been so insistent on keeping this material would do the work and boil this article down to an essence worth including. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wojtowicz[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. No references, inappopriate tone, prod removed by anon. If consensus to delete, note ton of redirects...  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:29, 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.--Wizardman 17:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas H. Welch[edit]

Thomas H. Welch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable musician, given sources do not establish notability per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki 03:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot seem to establish notability. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this tragic story does not meet notability. Mr. Welch played at Disneyland. I have no idea how many fans he had, but he had the typical musician's webpage. We should look at the totality of this story. I was very surprised that people objected to this story, considering how many Wikipedia articles are on entertainers not that well known to the typical person.

It does not seem like too many people are reading the Articles Pegged for Deletion.

Billy Hathorn 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the sources, Shreveport Times, Raised under Reagan website, and the coroner's office called "unsourced"?

Billy Hathorn 15:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Modern Japanese Studies Mailing List[edit]

Pre-Modern Japanese Studies Mailing List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mailing list that doesn't seem to be notable. Googling the title, I only get 17 unique google hits, which includes several Wikipedia-related hits. It really doesn't seem like this meets WP:ATT, as the only sources available seem to be primary and no secondary sources. I don't really see what makes this anymore notable than any other arbitrary mailing list, claiming 650 members in the article, which doesn't seem like a lot to me. Delete as such. Wickethewok 03:39, 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 Weak keep. Cbrown1023 talk 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberathlete Amateur League[edit]

Cyberathlete Amateur League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:WEB, no independent WP:RS to indicate notability. Leuko 04:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The initial purpose seems like a desire to explain that CPL/CAL are both different entities except now CPL owns a financial stake in CAL. Any suggestions to salvage or should it be merged wtih TheCPL as suggested above? ZBrannigan 19:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Nuccio[edit]

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

Non-notable biography, does not meet WP:BIO, contested A7 speedy. Leuko 04:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: doesn't have any real references through the article just a bunch of links at the end which I suspect (not verified) may be mostly 1st party related. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FR Soliloquy (talk • contribs) 04:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Fox(Santa Cruz)[edit]

Josh Fox(Santa Cruz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • I don't see how. Check out WP:N for guidelines on establishing notability. Delete Chunky Rice 19:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Designer Whey Protein[edit]

Designer Whey Protein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Advertisement masquerading as an article". The "article" does not establish notability other than it being a brand of whey protein, and the information used to asert notability is unsourced, or is simply an advertising slogan used by the manufacturer itself about it's own product. This advertisment has two product images - one that is only weakly related to the main article topic; and two corporate links - to a company that does not have a Wikipedia article. Much of the information is original research, and what information is sourced is attributed to the companies own (self-published) website - not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. In fact there is not a single reliable source quoted in this article at all. Note that no other brand of whey protein has it's own Wikipedia entry - despite there being about 40 other brands on the market. The non-corporate links that have been included in this advertisement are general whey protein links and can be transferred over to the main whey protein article once it's deleted. Quartet 04:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Darley[edit]

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

I came across this as an orphan page. This appears to be a hoax, subject gets no ghits and creators hx is of minor vandalism with this being a step up. It was rather plausible until the last sentence though. killing sparrows 05:05, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Testate amoebae[edit]

Looks copy and pasted. Plagiarism? Mrmoocow 05:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CrimeLine[edit]

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

A website/newsletter that doesn't seem to have been subject of a secondary article. It doesn't seem to meet WP:ATT. The only secondary "reference" listed in the article is a link to a website which contains the following text: "The Crown Prosecution Service (Claimant) -V- South East Surrey Youth Court (Defendant) And X (Interested Party) [2005] EWHC 2929 (Admin), brought to our attention by Andrew Keogh, editor of CrimeLine." That doesn't anywhere meet WP:ATT. Delete as lacking any secondary coverage and failing WP:ATT. (I haven't found any sources while googling, but note that it is excessively difficult to Google as "crimeline" is used for about a million things.) Wickethewok 05:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've modified to statement based on your points. I'm curious, is CrimeLine at least a major criminal justice newsletter in Great Britain ? MadMax 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an expert in the field, but from all that I have been able to gather, the answer is in the negative. Sam Blacketer 22:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Mears[edit]

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

Non-notable - alot of ghits on the name but none seem related to this guy. WP:OR, WP:COI and WP:NN. I think this is part of a series of self-promotional pages. Peter Rehse 05:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Rudy[edit]

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

Contested prod. As well as COI, and non-encyclopedic content. Sancho (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:COI, but I have concerns about WP:BITE. -- TedFrank 05:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do too. I was in the middle of asking for improvements when another editor had posted a prod, which was subsequently removed by a third editor. This was a procedural listing as per this direction on contested prods. I have given then third editor guidance on his anonymous user talk page about how to improve this article. Sancho (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I strongly suspect the anon is the original creator, you may want to also leave a note on the original creator's page. -- TedFrank 05:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call... I'll do it. Sancho (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heckuva lot of clumsy extraneous detail and work for a hoax, but I agree with the ultimate result. -- TedFrank 13:35, 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 withdrawn. Wickethewok 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mezangelle[edit]

Mezangelle (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Constructed language that doesn't seem to meet WP:ATT. Apparently it was made up on various mailing lists. In any case, its not verifiable through multiple reliable sources. A previous VFD was here, which was a no consesus. Wickethewok 05:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eesh, if there are going to be SPAs, they could at least discuss the article in question. ^^What Carolfrog said above. Wickethewok 08:28, 20 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 don't really have a quorum here, but not a single voice was raised for Keep, and notability is not established in the article. Herostratus 13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-Style[edit]

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

Non notable Gennaro Prota•Talk 05:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which I had noticed, yes. Truth is, I'm Italian and have never heard of the brand, or seen the logo. I stumbled upon the page while searching for an article about astyle, the code formatter/beautifier. My suspect is that someone wrote the article just for advertising. Here's what the Italian page linked to from the article (http://www.ccsg.it/A-Style.htm) says:
For long time now, everywhere in our streets, a subliminal message can be seen which many people have become aware of. It's not, in fact, a difficult and concealed persuasion attempt: in a weird "A" is sublimated a podalic ["doggy-style"] intercourse (so homosexuals are not displeased). These images we all have seen are put either in form of stickers, usually nearby cars (see image 1), or as a brand logo with various size on shirts and trousers (see image 2)
The image is, in effect, a "commercial brand" regularly registered in our country... in spite of the Italian law, which explicitly FORBIDS the usage of subliminal messages for commercial purposes...
The fact that the message is very evident doesn't make its usage harmless: numerous people haven't realized what that weird "A" with two dots, each one representing a person head, conceals (see image 3). Let's think, moreover, that the association sex/commercial product has always payed off in terms of sale increase, especially if the association is of subliminal kind... —Gennaro Prota•Talk 10:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this doesn't have notabilty in Italy as, say FCUK (not necessarily the same level, but the same vein), then it should be deleted. I'm still abstaining from a position.--ZayZayEM 02:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 22:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community Education Development Association[edit]

Community Education Development Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This organization was founded by a fellow who has twice tried to put his autobiography here, and is probably listing his organization for non-neutral motives. It turns up only 400 Google hits, nothing from any major press source, and the organization's website is extremely vague about what exactly it intends to do. YechielMan 06:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that its an NGO isnt disputed I suppose. There is the question of notablity, neutrality and its encyclopedi-ness. --Oblivious 05:57, 22 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 g1, totally unverified nonsense bio. NawlinWiki 15:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alia Eckhard[edit]

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

Person sounds only marginally notable (child of celeb) with an intriguing but completely uncited story. No ghits for "alia eckhard" or "alia d eckhard", so I'm tempted to call shenanigans. DMacks 07:11, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement[edit]

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure, but if Steve Pavlina was removed, maybe this one fails the notability criterias too. --Taraborn 20:18, 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 merge had previously been discussed and opposed, Transwiki is an option if its followed through then nominate again. Gnangarra 07:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Canticle for Leibowitz Latin translations[edit]

A Canticle for Leibowitz Latin translations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft, fancruft. At the least merge with A Canticle for Leibowitz Latin translations. Quentin Smith 08:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild II[edit]

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

I am absolutely certain that this is either a hoax, wishful thinking, or a misunderstanding. I can find absolutely no evidence that this film is being made - given that this film would be a major release, this is somewhat surprising. Even IMDB, which only requires the merest rumour to create an articles, does not have a page for this film. Unless evidence of this film's existence can be produced, this article must be deleted (the film would have to be in production by now, given the long process of making animated features). Rje 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been speedy deleted twice as a hoax, I am not sure that being a hoax is strictly grounds for speedy deletion so I have listed it here. Rje 10:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Delete Manik Raina 09:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this user (under another nickname) has created another hoax article. I've put it up for deletion over here. Esn 10:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the sockpuppet template to that IP... adding it to the long list. Esn 23:54, 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 speedy close - this is articles for deletion, not merging. See WP:MERGE for more info on merging. MER-C 11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yen carry trade[edit]

Yen carry trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Should be merged with Carry (investment) as all the information is already in that article. Suicup 09:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 01:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Luis Rey Handicap[edit]

San Luis Rey Handicap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a grade 2 race with very little media coverage. Nv8200p talk 12:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph is factually wrong, the horse was rescued three years later, after several owners. http://www.trfinc.org/news/view_pr.php?id=1 Jrstark 04:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Manik Raina 09:33, 16 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, Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Rixon[edit]

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

Unreferenced and not encyclopedic. Fails WP:BIO. --Longhair\talk 09:35, 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 the article to be extinct - deleted. - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct animals in popular culture[edit]

Extinct animals in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is effectively a list that attempts to chronicle the appearance of all extinct species in popular culture, ie. a collection indiscriminate information (WP:NOT). There are hundreds of thousands of extinct species (most of the current content are prehistoric - and could probably be merged into Dinosaurs in popular culture), so this list could never be complete (WP:LIST). Delete --Peta 11:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in before voting.--JyriL talk 21:20, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Puchkov[edit]

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

The article doesn't meet the notability requirement for biographies (WP:BIO). All references are to Russian web sites. If anything, it should be on the Russian Wikipedia. Has anyone who doesn't speak Russian ever heard of Dmitry Puchkov? Faustus 11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Are you saying that only Russian-speakers should know about these things? Is it not the purpose of Wikipedia to inform people of things they may not know? Chronolegion 12:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I didn't phrase the reasons clearly. The main problem with the article is that it does not meet the notability requirements specified in WP:BIO. The Russian references comment's purpose is to demonstrate this. Faustus 12:24, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlentyofFish

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 FCYTravis. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rahib[edit]

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

Suspected hoax; no g-hits for rahib & rhino. Neier 12:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedied. --Fang Aili talk 17:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wintana[edit]

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

Google for 'Wintana Eritrea princess' shows nothing KeithD 12:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Elizabeth Shearon[edit]

Janet Elizabeth Shearon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bio page, sole reason for notability is brief marriage to Neil Armstrong

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Veinor (talk to me) 13:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Stewart[edit]

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

Not notable. Does not pass WP:BIO as she has not been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Epbr123 13:14, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 22:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-skinheads[edit]

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

This article was already deleted through the appropriate Wikipedia procedures and merely re-created using an old version of the article. Although anarchist skinheads do exist, the term anarcho-skinheads is not used, and they are not considered a distinct and separate category. There are no references, and all of the content was duplicated from the Skinhead, Punk-Skinhead, RASH, Redskin (subculture) and Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice articles. Spylab 14:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see reasoning above.Spylab 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it at Anarcho-Skinhead. It was deleted by PROD back in December. Unfortuneately, PROD deletions set no precedence for recreation. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions only. A single protest, before or after deletion, and it's no longer uncontroversial. PRODed articles have no prohibition against recreation either, as recreation can be considered a protest against the deletion. Given all that, this will need to proceed through this AFD to the end if it is to establish that it really should not exist on the project. - TexasAndroid 16:56, 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 close - Redirects are Cheap®. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bram Stoker´s Dracula (pinball)[edit]

Bram Stoker´s Dracula (pinball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page has been duplicated into another similar (Bram Stoker's Dracula (pinball)).) David Pro 20:10, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City of Caterpillar[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability requirements. Band does not meet any of the criteria listed on Wikipedia:Notability (music) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 March 2007

Chris 06:48, 22 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 and redirect to Coluber constrictor priapus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Black Racer[edit]

Florida Black Racer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently no such snake exists. Montchav 19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original authour wrote the following on the page, after getting rid of the AFD tag - --Montchav 14:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC):[reply]

The author removed this page because it was targeted for removal by someone calling himself Montchav who erroneously believes Black Racers either don't exist or do not exist in Florida. The photos were taken by a Florida naturalist who has identified the snakes as Black Racers—a fully recognized snake species. He wrote a 100% accurate article and kept it brief thus allowing room for other contributions. Simply checking the Audubon Guides he mentioned would have clarified this for Montchav. In my opinion the whole concept of Wikipedia does not rise beyond the level of writing as a hobby and this treatment proves that to be the case. The term encylopedia is being misused.

The original author also wrote: The issue is settled. Someone doesn't believe the creature in question actually exists so it has been recommended for deletion. Facts are not apparently important so let's just delete it speedily. The author/naturalist votes to delete it. The article is too serious for your interpretation of an encyclopedia. Let us not waste time. Funny story—in coming additions I planned to include information about Black Racers not hibernating in Florida. I have already encountered one this pre spring—apparently it was an illusion. Delete the article!

You win. The guy who buys ink by the barrel always wins. Just delete the article and allow us to use our energy for more constructive pursuits.

To the original author : Plesae keep the discussions about the article on this page, or on Talk:Florida Black Racer. --Montchav 15:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article. There is nothing to discuss. Before User Montchav recommended something for deletion a little research should have been done. Is this how people research articles? That calls their credibility as well as the credibility of Wikipedia into question. We could debate classifying Black Racers into sub species such as Everglades Black Racer, Eastern Black Racer, Florida Black Racer, Southern Black Racer etc but for a person who claims the role of an editor to simply say "Apparently no such snake exists" is astonishing. When I first began considering Wikipedia I ran across an article about President Zimpher of the University of Cincinnati. Horrible things were said about this decent person and I followed to see what would happen and how long it would take to make corrections. Before I began submitting edits and articles I tested the waters with a few harmless and facetious additions and observed the process. I was satisfied that the concept could work but this idea of listing something you know absolutely nothing about as an article for deletion has changed my opinion. In my opinion, Wikipedia is close to the old idea that a broken clock is correct twice a day. Such a clock is worthless and dusting and polishing such a broken timepiece is pointless. Delete the article! --Neilnat Get rid of that junk!!--74.104.224.214 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, get rid of it—isn't there still a way to speedily delete it? Delete it, please--Neilnat

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - Richard Cavell 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Summer (band)[edit]

Indian Summer (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet notability requirements. Band does not meet any of the criteria listed on Wikipedia:Notability (music)

delete-Hoponpop69 23:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep - Richard Cavell 23:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlentyofFish[edit]

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

WP:WEB angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 12:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ska Boys[edit]

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

Non-notable, and no references, The first sentence even says the band "failed to ever succeed among a large forum of listeners." Spylab 15:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See above for reason.Spylab 15:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to recap: the band did THREE live shows and got booed off stage on the first two. The third show was held in a PUB. This might be worth nominating for WP:BJAODN for the humour factor. Suriel1981 13:08, 20 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 09:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Jonze[edit]

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

One line entry giving no details of work etc and no indication of notability Iridescenti 19:27, 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.

Stupid.com[edit]

The result was Delete per obvious consensus; don't see a point in relisting this. >Radiant< 14:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid.com was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-19. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid.com.
Stupid.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article looks like it's about a completely nonnotable site with a few fans. I'm not convinced by the 100k Google hits, nor by the fact that CNN mentioned it once last year acc. to the previous AfD (I wasn't able to confirm this). In short, it fails WP:WEB YechielMan 20:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC) A Train take the 13:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional left-handed characters[edit]

List of fictional left-handed characters was nominated for deletion on 2006-01-04. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional left-handed characters (1).
List of fictional left-handed characters was nominated for deletion again on 2007-01-23. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional left-handed characters (second nomination).
List of fictional left-handed characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Simply put, this is trivia, failing WP:IINFO. It also lacks sources and verification, potentially failing WP:NOR. (There was no consensus in a nomination two months ago, here) >Radiant< 13:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional nerds[edit]

Like the recently-deleted fictional bullies, this category is not objectively defined and boils down to "fictional characters that are intelligent and socially awkward as compared to other characters in the same series". >Radiant< 14:15, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic MUD[edit]

Nice article, but appears to be (self?-) promotion of a rather unknown MUD (of which there are thousands). Lacks any evidence of external review, sources, importance, etc. >Radiant< 14:20, 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, I guess. Not an easy one, and the problem that other users haved edited the article (which excludes it from CSD G7) made this a tricky close. However, per Moreschi conservatism is best, and the consensus from this debate is that this person isn't notable enough. However, please also remember that a subject's wishes aren't always the wishes of the community; however, in this case, they were. Daniel Bryant 04:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bojan Pavlovic[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Editor claiming to be the article's subject blanked the page, requesting deletion. I'm neutral myself. TexasAndroid 14:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author in question and absolutely agree. This entry was posted after my first novel was published last year to probably increase awareness by agency and to make my profile "googleable." I think having one novel out is far from qualifiying me as ecyclopaedia worthy... Maybe in 20-30 years, however, the that will change ;-) Thanks. BPavlovic 16 March 2007
The verdict is delete. BPavlovic Can someone do it? You don't decide what the verdict is; administrators do. Daniel Bryant 04:12, 23 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 09:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live Free or Die (cellular automaton)[edit]

Live Free or Die (cellular automaton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod from February 22. Prod text was: Appears to be original research. Not listed among the named rules in Life-like cellular automaton nor among the list of rules at fano.ics.uci.edu. No non-trivial hits on Google. To avoid deletion, reliable independent sources for verifiability and notability must be cited. Ginkgo100 removed the prod without explanation and without providing any additional sourcing per request of Lordmetroid. —David Eppstein 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC) David Eppstein 14:49, 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 Redirect to Gravitation. Cbrown1023 talk 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational attraction[edit]

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

This article used to be a redirect to gravitation. JimJast has created a new article here which fails WP:NPOV in its presentation and WP:OR in its description of how curvature mimics a force. From talk:gravitational attraction one finds that the purpose of this article is to present that which JimJast calls "Einstein's POV", but which in fact is Jim's personal opinion of what that POV is. This article needs to be returned to being a redirect. EMS | Talk 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to jump to the top of the queue, but I think this quote should settle this "debate". The following is from the Feynman Lectures on Gravitation, page 3:

"we first define the mass as the inertia of the object, which we measure by applying known forces and measuring the acceleration. Then we measure the attraction due to gravitation, for example, by weighing, and compare the results." (emphasis mine).Flying fish 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • question to linas Don't you agree with Landau that total energy E doesn't change with the change of position of particle (and so there isn't any gravitational attraction involved in the movement of the particle)? Jim 09:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - The total energy E of a free-falling particle doesn't change in classical mechanics either. Are you claiming that this should mean that there is no force of gravity in Newton's view? --EMS | Talk 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The kinetic energy of the particle changes in a free fall (e.g. when particle "drops" its kinetic energy increaes). So from Newton's POV (and so also from POV of non relativistic classical mechanics) there was a need for an assumption of some kind of "gravitational attractive force" F=dE/dx (where E is this kinetic energy and x is distance) that could be responsible for this change of kinetic energy of the free falling particle. To keep the conservation of energy intact this energy has been assumed to be delivered form a source called "potential energy of the particle". And that's why it has been assumed in Newtonian physics and non relativistic classical mechanics that the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy of the particle is constant. In relativistic physics since the energy of the free falling particle doesn't change despite its changing kinetic energy (see Landau) there is no need for an assumption of any "gravitational attractive force" nor any "potential energy". That's why we say now that Einstein eliminated "gravitational attractive force" form physics. Jim 15:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - You did not write "kinetic energy" above, but instead wrote "total energy". You are going to have to learn that if your writing is subject to misinterpretation, the fault is yours and not the reader's. BTW - You still have a goof in the above as you wrote that the "energy of the free falling particle does not change despite its changing kinetic energy", yet the point of your write-up is that the change in c (as determined by a distant observer) keeps the kinetic energy constant in general relativity. --EMS | Talk 16:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - What do you mean You did not write "kinetic energy" above? I just started my last comment from The kinetic energy of the particle .... When I write "kinetic energy" I mean "kinetic energy", when I write "total energy" I mean "total energy". While the idea of "kinetic energy" is almost the same in Newtonian and relativistic physics, the idea of "total energy" is obviously different in relativity since in Newtonian physics it used to be "kinetic energy" plus "potential energy", the latter being usually "negative". The "potential energy" lost its meaning in relativity where "total energy" is . Could you explain more clearly what you mean by "keeps the kinetic energy constant in general relativity" since in relativity the total energy is constant. The "kinetic energy" isn't constant in neither physics unless in the reference frame of the free falling particle when it is a trivial zero. Jim 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Interesting goof on my part, as you are correct that Newtonian physics lack any rest energy, and kinetic energy does not include that. My point remains that energy is conserved (locally) in any case. More important is that your question to linas can only be valid if potential energy is excluded, but there was nothing in the question to make that clear. You keep approaching things from your own perculiar POV, and have no respect for the knowledge base or the needs of others. More specifically to this case, you seem to think that the gravitational attraction article should be a pro-GR rant instead of an informative review of the topic itself. --EMS | Talk 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'm just trying to explain gravitation based on the "needs of others" which I hope is as simple explanation as possible so it could be understood by a high school student. That's why I use just derivatives and not the tensor calculus which would turn off most people. However, as Einstein said, while everything should be made as simple as possible (and luckily physics is simple, even simpler than Newton's) the math shouldn't be made any simpler than possible. So I think I made it the simplest possible. If you can make it any simpler you are welcome to modify my stuff but I don't think that keeping old Newtonian stuff would do anybody any good. Jim 21:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • additional comment - You seem to be one of the guys on the other side of the issue who understands the issue. So you might be able to turn the whole consensus from 9:1 (as it stands now) to 0:10 (as it should be if everybody understood clearly what the issue is). So I should probably explain the issue more clearly. But I had a feeling that I did it already in the "gravitational attraction" page and no one was interested enough to read it all. So if we could discuss, after reading the page, what are the real objections (not just "troll Jim pushing again his POV") I'd have an opportunity to clarify them and explain while in this case Jim's POV is also POV of the hard science that is taught in all universieties around the world, unfortunately only to graduate physics students. And I'd like it to be taught to high school students as well since they are perfectly well capable of understanding this hard science POV, when it is properly explained to them. So if I make dydactical errors, as you seem to suggest, please point thosse errors to me and we may clarify them. One isse that you pointed to already is "total energy". However I also modified this page to fit the contemporary state of affairs and it was reverted to some non invariant nonsens as well. So I just concentrate on the most important issue in my opinion, which is the faith in gravitational attraction. This faith has persisted already for over 300 years, and it is outdated for almost 100 years, but despite that it is taught to high school students around the world, as good enough for them. Which then it has all the features of a state religion (in this case even a world religion). It is tauht with a hope that when those students are interested in the truth then they may study physics and learn in due time what the truth is. Apparently they never do as it is shown by this consensus of educated people, most likely graduated from many high schools, and some even graduate students in physics at Harvard University. Jim 09:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Any reason for redirection? Jim 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Your example with a round Earth is about approximation while sentence about gravitational attraction is about something not existing at all. It seems that almost a century after the gravitational attraction disppeared from physics the high school students might finally start reading encyclopedia's articles that tell them the same thing that physics students learn in their gravitation courses and to learn how gravitation really works instead of believing a nearly century old story. Jim 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Science is about approximation and model building. The model of 1/r**2 attraction works very well (wihthin measurement uncertainties) for almost everything everyone does. Should we change the first sentence of "proton" to "The existance of protons is a myth! In reality the proton is a bound state of three quarks of individual color". (Of course in perturbative field theory "quarks" don't exist either, they're just excitations out of the vacuum, so one can go even further...) We teach high school physics students about friction - but "friction is a myth"! It's really an integral of electromagnetic interactions between atoms (uh oh) on each of the adjacent surfaces.
Models are used constantly in physics. Condensed matter physicists talk about "depletion forces" (really electromagnetic), electronics designers talk about the AC current through a capacitor (electrons don't actually flow), we even talk about electrons "flowing" even though individual electrons bounce all over the place in the wire, and don't really go in orderly circles through the loop. The model of gravitational attraction due a to 1/r**2 force is an exceedingly good model for everyday life, is VERY important in the history physics, and is a great teaching tool. If you want people to learn about general relativity then include a link to it on Gravitation (I assume it's there already), and mention that the 1/r**2 force law represents the old way of thinking about it. Done.Flying fish 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • response - I did what you advise long time ago, and it was removed by someone who believes (without any proof so far, but he believes it is going to be proved in future) that masses attract each other through empty space and a sentence to this effect still opens, untouched, the "Gravitation" page. That's why I stopped editing for a while (as Feynman advised "no argument will convince the idiot" [23]) but then it occured to me that I may create a page about gravitational attraction and clarify this issue according to knowledge delivered by reliable sources. It might have the advantage that idiots can't blank it since it would make an act of vandalism according to Wikipedia's policy. Now you and EMS did just that and additionally you think that high school students should be shielded from contmporary knowledge about gravitational attraction. Apparently you believe that shielding brings them a lot of good. EMS even thinks that admitting that relativity is real might blow people minds (which he saw happening). So you guys think that telling the truth as we know it is bad and Wikipedia should protect inocent high school students from learing truth about the real world and do it through an administrative action. However it is probably against Wikipedia's policy and for sure against policy of Prof. Dumbledore who maintained that the best way to improve society is to tell the truth as it is known. The simple reason behind such policy is that one can't predict the results of the lies that people are fed with, for noble purposes, and sometimes those lies backfire and then one regrets that those people were ever lied to.
An example of backfiring of noble purpose might be very recent decision by Polish Government (one of the few Governments that helps us to win the Iraq War) to consider a death during surgery an assasination. It might have ben an attempt to raise the flagging popularity of the ruling party with the voters. One doctor whose patient died after the surgery has been accused of assasination by the Minister of Justice (even before the trial) and jailed after a squad of police, popularly known as Ninja Turtles for their gear, made a spectacular arrest at the hospital for patients to enjoy. However the noble idea of creating a "perfect tool" for improving hospital statistics backfired by refusal of some Polish doctors to perform surgeries, which the Government didn't foreseen. They meant well and yet the bad doctors turned the best intentions into a disaster for Polish people who now have difficulties with having surgeries since 20 years in jail is too big a risk for those cowardly doctors. Unfortunately there is no death penelty in Poland so 20 years for assasination is max the governmant can afford but the Government is working on improving Polish Constitution that would be more like in Texas. So soon if a patient dies so does his doctor. Apparently, Polish Government might assume that it "is an exceedingly good model for everyday life, [...] and is a great teaching tool" to teach doctors.
To warn anybody who might not know, to call the Polish President, Mr. Kaczynski (don't mix him with this twin brother who looks exactly the same but is a Prime Minister of Poland) by any disrespectful name, according to the Polish law, might carry a penelty of three years in jail, and one doesn't have to live in Poland to be punished, since this law similarly to the American law is universal and may reach you wherever you are. The ruling party is "Law and Justice", and it is dedicated to enforcing the law. So guys, don't jump publicly to conclusions about the Polish Government. Now they are going to help us also in Afghanistan, and even on the ground, they are so tough, with our support only from the air, so be rather gentle with them, and no Polish Jokes please. Except possibly something like "Jim himself is a polish joke", which might be justified because of not folowing Feynman's advice. Jim 14:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • more response - Flying fish, the above story is about a 40 million nation in the middle of Europe, of average IQ as ours, and the purpose of the story is for you to realize that people are not rational creatures and feeding them un-truths make them even less rational and that's why telling the truth, even to idiots, is the best policy.
Even if you try to think everything over in every detail they always manage to screw up something and then they tell you "you said it yourself". And then your only defense is "well, I lied, since I thought that you are idiots and can't bear the truth since it might blow your minds". And this is a very weak defense. So if you can document the fact that three quarks together is a myth, say it. It is BTW what Feynman always did. When he knew that something isn't true he said so and then he explained what model we may use to work with it anyway. Because science is not about models, as you say, but suprizingly enough it is abobut finding what is false. Which can be done in all relevant cases through experiments. That's why we already know, and are sure of, a lot of myth. By an important epistemological rule we can find what is true only when it is just oposite to a myth that we already proved false. And unfortunately there are many possible things opposite to a given myth. That's why to find truth is so difficult but luckily not impossible in principle.
One of my professors who taught magnetism always started his lectures by saying: "Whatever I'll tell you isn't true. It is simplified to make it easier for you to calculate certain things and understand what you can't calculate with those methods and why". And so the students were warned that Maxwell Equations are only approximation and could accept the rest and become better physicists than those who believed in Maxwell Equations and thought that magnetic force can exists on its own (you just add one term to Maxwell...) and were looking for "magnetic monopoles" not even suspecting that "magnetic monopole" (a stick with one end) or a graviton (a carrier of inertial force, a.k.a. "gravitational force") might be a myth. Jim 16:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - If you feel that word "myth" is improper you might want to change it to more scientifically correct "urban legend". Jim 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Science is not the search for truth. There are no certitudes in science, only theories and models. Further, since you mentioned Feynman let me quote from page 3 of the Feynman lectures on gravitation: "First of all there is the fact that the attraction follows an inverse-square law... Then there is the fact that the force is proportional to the masses of the objects." Then later on the same page: "we first define the mass as the inertia of the object, which we measure by applying known forces and measuring the acceleration. Then we measure the attraction due to gravitation, for example, by weighing, and compare the results." (emphasis mine). I think this ought to settle this matter.Flying fish 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • response - You say "Science is not the search for truth", making an impression that maybe I said that it is. I said: "science is [...] about finding what is false". Of course finding what is false is not the same as the search for truth since as you agreed there are no certitudes in science. So we agree on this point. Then as it turns out we agree also on a point that The inverse square law holds in everyday life, and is a great approximation to nature ... which you said yourself. So your example with Feynman is about a model that Feynamn explains and which is an approximation to nature. It is all independent of what Einstein discovered, since as Feynman says in section 7-8 (Gravity and relativity) of The Fenman lectures on physics "In spite of all the excitement it created, Newton's law of gravitation is not correct!" (exclamation is Feynman's). Now my POV is that we shouldn't present to high school students something about which we already know that it is false, which contrary to truth can be discovered by science and it's even the purpose of science to find what is false. Because we don't want to live in the world of illusions as lived the people of Dark Ages. So my purpose is to show to the high school students how easy it is to understand Einstein's gravitation (and if I didn't do it well enough you are welcome to help), and so they don't need to believe that the gravitational attraction is real. They should know that it is not real (as far as we know) because this knowledge makes them capable of discovering something on their own in physics. While this opportunity will be taken away form most of them when from the earliest years they are going to believe in urban legends which Newtonian gravitation claerly is as Feynman confirms. We differ then only in POV on the educational policy. The education of most people taking part in this debate is an evidence that the present policy on teaching gravitation starting from Newton's theory is wrong. IMO it should start from stating clearly that there is no such thing as gravitational attraction, how it is simulated (which as you can see from the disputed page, thanks to Landau, takes less than 45 minutes to explain) and only then, when students comprehend the physics of the real world, explaining how simpy we can solve problems involving gravitation with Newton's equations. Otherwise we create mentally challenged individuals who might believe that the real world can't be understood. And later in life have problems with explaining many cosmological puzzles since faith in gravitational attraction affects their clear judgment. Jim 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Any reason for redirection? Jim 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - JimJast is referring to other editors as vandals in a similar though less egregious content dispute. [24][25] Tim Shuba 00:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - according to Wikipedia, blanking someone else's page (which Tim Shuba did) is vandalism. If you don't like the page because it contradicts your particular POV, to proceed in a civilized manner, you should state your offended POV first and then if not satisfied by the response, to request the deletion of the page. E.g. I don't understand why you consider Newtonian physics and relativity (contained in classical mechanics) being the same. Unless you never heard about relativity being different than Newtonian physics, but even then it is not a good reason for blanking a page. Jim 15:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. It doesn't make any sense that people who want to read about the gravitational force would need to understand general relativity first. It would be a very non-standard pedagogical approach.
comment Apparently this non standard pedagogical approach is urgently needed since relativity is around already for about a century and as demonstratef by this voting list a lot of intelligent people still don't understand it and some don't even know the simplest things about it. Jim 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The article includes many mistakes. For example, the text claims that gravitational force exists when the body "is prevented from its free movement" and that it doesn't exist when the body is free to move. With or without general relativity, this statement is wrong.
comment This POV is wrong according to your POV but it is right according to POV of any textbook on general relativity. So to be fair you might say that opinions are divided, and yours aren't supported by any relible source yet since reliable sources support general relativity's POV. Even the autors that you quoted in discussion with me admit that they don't know yet how to prove their POV so they say that existence of attractive force is just their hypothesis. General relativity's POV, on the other hand, has been confirmed by all experiments up to date. Which makes pretty clear choice for Wikipedia. Jim 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. The main claim of the article that "gravitational attraction is a myth" isn't the only existing interpretation of Einstein's equations, and maybe not even the dominant one. I tried to fix the article, included a reference to a textbook, provided additional discussion and references on Talk:Gravitational attraction, but User:JimJast reverted the changes and removed the reference, violating many Wikipedia policies just in order to keep his POV as the only way to look at the subject. The whole article has a very POV-ish style. It seems like it's the only reason why User:JimJast created this fork, after his ideas weren't accepted in existing articles on gravitation. Yevgeny Kats 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Wikipedia policy is to promote present knowledge (coming from reliable sources). Presenting stuff that even its authors consider to be hypotheses that are going to be proved sometime in the future is not something that should be necessarily placed in an encyclopedia. It is however proper for page like "other hypohteses" (since they aren't even theories yet, if you understand the difference). Jim 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • question Which conerns would you pay this special attention to and why? Jim 22:08, 19 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 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rabbi Studios[edit]

Hello Rabbi Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable. Article has already been tagged as an advertisment. Nothing else links to it. The Article has been created by a group of school children - while apparently done with good intent it does not yet warrant inclusion on/in Wikipedia. -- Rehnn83 Talk 15:09, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 22:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Monaghan (porn star)[edit]

Michelle Monaghan (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Epbr123 15:05, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Technica[edit]

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

Does not, in my opinion, assert notability. I came across this page reading its post at the conflict of interest noticeboard, where someone reported that writers were removing sourced, negative info about the site. Most of the references are from the site itself. delldot talk 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I owe everyone an apology: I didn't realize how notable of a site this was when I nominated it, and I should have done more homework. I think the article needs a lot of work but at this point I'd like to withdraw my nomination. delldot talk 21:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I be the first to say that Apple Fetishism sounds seriously kinky :) But either way, we're after facts here, not POV - Alison☺ 00:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apple fetish sites are non-notable, due to their sheer abundance. DrPizza 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kennedye is a forum moderator at Ars, so this comment may be taken as a conflict of interest of the user is indeed the same. Full disclosure: I'm a regular reader and forumite at Ars, so I won't express my opinion on the discussion as a whole. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 01:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anon editors who are only interested in putting negative information into an article, hmm, could they be sockpuppets of someone with a grudge? If the only "meat" you have to offer is bad mouthing the subject, your additions should be being deleted, IMarrogantO. htom 13:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, hello? "Anon editors" weren't the only ones trying to restore the criticism section (a section of similar sort is in the Slashdot article, and doesn't get attacked all the time). In fact, there was maybe only one other "anon" editor besides me that I can remember. And it wasn't bad mouthing. It was sourced criticism, mostly not added by me (though I did try to add sources for those who demanded it). BTW, offtopic, but is that an MST3K nick? I love that episode.--216.227.57.119 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest is not a reason to delete this article. There are thousands upon thousands of people who attempt to manipulate Wikipedia's content for negative reasons. And it's not posting on Slashdot that decide me, but references by numerous other news sources including the Guardian and Zdnet. FrozenPurpleCube 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely responding to the attribution of importance attached with having your articles or summaries of other articles posted on Slashdot.--216.227.57.119 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, say what you will, Slashdot is at least a selective news aggregator, so they do have some value in determining a given source's merits, but as they're not the only site to reference Ars Technica, it's not worth quibbling over. FrozenPurpleCube 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since all the "criticism" was totally retarded (insofar as it was substantially fabricated and consistently unsupported) it was not unreasonable to remove it. Articles about extant web pages are in any case generally worthless; if you want to know what Ars Technica's about, stick the frigging URL into your web browser and take a look. You don't need an "encyclopaedia" entry about it. Articles like this one seem only to cater to those lunatics who believe that if it's not on Wikipedia it doesn't exist. Such articles can only ever be fluff, because there's nothing substantive to say. At least Slashdot is somewhat notable, due to the way it functions as a DoS tool. DrPizza 11:17, 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 09:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ozanne[edit]

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

An "preeminent visual artist" for whom grand but alas airy and unsubstantiated (and poorly spelled) claims are made. A bit earlier, interested readers would have read that He has received more than 100 nominiations [sic] for awards, distinctions and letters from many societies, social organizations, foundations and academies during his career as an artist; this has now gone, but he has a sense of international significance as a World Artist, to the extent of having his biography written up by the "International Biographical Centre" (whose article was, perhaps just coincidentally, vandalized, bowdlerized or "abridged" by an interested party). Unverifiable puffery. -- Hoary 11:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fewer than 1200 G Hits and some of these are WP mirrors. Doesn't seem to be quite as notable as his biography claims. Inadequate number of independent verifiable sources. Maustrauser 22:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 15:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“Oscar Della Arte” Gold Medal Torino 2006, Society of Michelangelo Buanarotti
First Prize, Religious Art (Free Subject), Santamaria della Arte, Torino Italy
First Prize, European Small Works Exhibition, Torino Italy 2005
we should see if someone from Italy or living in Italy can find some second party sources. The first award is notable. no opinion about the other two. AlfPhotoman 23:53, 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 Redirect - there is a clear preponderance of 'delete' or 'redirect' rather than 'keep' votes here. Redirects are cheap, and I shall turn this into a redirect rather than deleting outright. - Richard Cavell 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Elementary School[edit]

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

This article makes absolutely no claim of notability. It's a vandalism magnet, has no sources outside the school itself, and articles on every elementary school in the world is completely unmaintainable. All schools are not inherently notable, just like not all pairs of shoes are inherently notable. Delete Mak (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • High schools are not the same as elementary schools. This is an elementary school. A consensus about high schools in not relevant. Mak (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 Richard Cavell 03:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greenplum[edit]

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

Prodded as a nn corp, and de-prodded by an anon. Removed from the new article bot's list of possible problem pages by creator. Large number of incoming links appears to be due to addition of the page to a template by DRady (talk · contribs). I don't really know my databases, so for all I know this one is very notable, but I smell spam. -- Vary | Talk 15:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wouldn't call it spam: GP is fairly well-known within the Postgres community, and they've gotten quite a few mentions in the press (for example, their recent partnership with Sun: [26], [27], etc.). They are probably one of the more notable startups in the data warehousing market (along with Netezza and a few others). "Greenplum" gets ~146,000 Google hits. That said, the current article content is pretty poor -- it could definitely stand to be improved. (Full disclosure: I'm a Postgres developer, but I have never worked for Greenplum.) Neilc 08:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the google hits are press-release type statements but their collaboration with Sun and subsequent adoption of their product have attracted external coverage by a handful of developer journals. Substantial VC investment, agree with the above comment that this is a notable startup in data warehousing market. Irene Ringworm 04:14, 22 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 00:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Tuten[edit]

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

NN person, fails WP:BIO. Dismas|(talk) 15:56, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andreu Swasey[edit]

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

NN person, fails WP:BIO. Dismas|(talk) 16:02, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Nuchols[edit]

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

a senior environmental journalism major at Western Washington University, hardly notable: no independent sources. `'mikka 16:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Father/son pairs with most points in NHL[edit]

List of Father/son pairs with most points in NHL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-useful information. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has the additional (non-)virtue of breaking some wikicodes with its title. --Nlu (talk) 16:12, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 22:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Suicide Club[edit]

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

Delete - reads like an advertisement, shows no notability, only reference link (outside of home page) doesn't even mention the organization Betaeleven 16:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narkas[edit]

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

Aside form an edit war over invalidly-licensed images, there is not much to be said about this article. It's a creationist group, it makes some claims, but there is zero independent corroboration of those claims and no secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 10 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, Whispering 16:16, 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical Camden County, New Jersey municipalities[edit]

List of historical Camden County, New Jersey municipalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Collection of information without explanation or context. (Does historical indicate once existed and doesn't exist now or once existed and may exist now?) Has some kind of structure indicated by indenting but I can't figure out what the indenting means. Has dates (years) but doesn't indicate what the dates are (probably date of source but not stated). Source not indicated. Tagged for cleanup since September 2005. (If someone can explain what this is I'll withdraw my nomination, but I can't clean it up because I don't know what it means.) RJFJR 16:19, 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ableism[edit]

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

Unsourced. Appeared to be a neologism. Not used a single published legal opinion within the last five years.[28] (state), [29] (federal). Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:30, 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 keep. Appears to be a bad faith nomination, supported by anons with no policy-based objections, just spurious claims about article creator's source of income. -- Merope 01:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DynaMed[edit]

DynaMed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Comment Advertising. Critic111 is saying that it's a combination of spam and non-notability. As far as I can tell though, it meets all the guidelines for a good stub article, with non-advertorial text and references to provide information to expand it. I do plan to expand it. It's only been around for a couple days. Leebo T/C 21:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a bit more serious. Now you're accusing me of falsifying my references. Jeez, you'd think people would want hard references rather than just links. I bet I can find more references too. Leebo T/C 15:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are links to abstracts of the articles: JAMA, Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries (scroll down a bit in the contents), Annals of Family Medicine. I hope that clears up the false accusation by 59.183.145.136? All of those archives are very easily searched. Leebo T/C 15:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've integrated the links into the references. After reading through them, the only reference which may be iffy is the JAMA ref—and that's only because DynaMed is mentioned peripherally rather than as a central topic. Otherwise, all the refs Leebo provided seem just fine to me. -- MarcoTolo 21:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're right, the JAMA article might be better as a "further reading" link for electronic resources rather than to establish the notability of DynaMed. Leebo T/C 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er... nevermind, it looks great the way you laid it out, I hadn't checked. Leebo T/C 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read about stub articles. A short article is perfectly okay, that's how most articles start. I don't know how you got the impression I'm trying to promote them, since I work on a wide variety of articles. Please cite a policy or guideline that I have broken. Leebo T/C 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if it's not too much trouble, I'd appreciate an apology for the accusation of falsifying references. Leebo T/C 14:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest this article be deleted and be re-created at a later point. It is of no use for now.Delete then recreate. Recreate but later. There must be at least a minimum amount of information in a stub. This is not enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.130.107 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 19 March 2007
  • Comment Read Wikipedia:Notability. DynaMed has been featured in numerous industry academic journals. This is more than enough to sustain an article. Leebo T/C 11:48, 19 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, with no prejudice against a merge. The 'D' in AFD stands for 'deletion', not 'merging'. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Marilyn Monroe[edit]

Death of Marilyn Monroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cleanup of incomplete AfD nomination by Rodrigue (talk · contribs). I have no current opinion on the matter. -- Scientizzle 17:15, 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 keep as a redirect to Military designation of days and hours; the original nomination was based off of a vandalized version. Veinor (talk to me) 13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E day[edit]

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

Blatant hoax - google doesn't show a single reference to the phrase in this context Iridescenti 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The version of this site (as nominated) wasn't the military usage, which is a later change within the last couple of days, but some patent nonsense regarding the number e "E day is celebrated on the 2.71th day of the year" etc. The version of the page as it currently stands is undoubtedly valid. Iridescenti 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. My mistake. I'll give the original vandal an official warning. Suriel1981 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyEyedProductions[edit]

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

Advertising for non notable organisation, who in any event already have an entry under smosh Iridescenti 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as a user request; article was blanked by author and sole contributor. auburnpilot talk 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a difference a friend makes[edit]

What a difference a friend makes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOT#SOAP; this information may be useful to some users, and is certainly about an important topic, but it is not an encyclopedia entry. ◄Zahakiel► 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, it's probably also a copyright violation. See: [31] Leebo T/C 17:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On further reading of that link, it does seem that large portions are copied from the site you mentioned. ◄Zahakiel► 18:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for instance, the whole myths and facts section is a copy/paste most of the same section at this page. Leebo T/C 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, didn't notice you had updated your comment before posting my example. Leebo T/C 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An administrator may speedily close this discussion; the author has blanked the page and requested deletion. See the talk page for this discussion and the entry itself. Thanks. ◄Zahakiel► 18:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 + · · ·[edit]

1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 + · · · (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable geometric series. Not likely to be typed in (why not 2,3, or 5 terms, rather than 4?) ((db-nn))(!) and ((prod)) added and removed previously. If the reference were confirmed, it might be merged into geometric series, but the reference doesn't have a book title. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Lamb[edit]

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

once source that does not assert notability. Also, I think he fails WP:BIO for sportspeople, as calling him 'professional' is a stretch at best.

also, please note previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Lamb
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 point relisting this. - Richard Cavell 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Longcor[edit]

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

I was using this musician as an example of someone whose music I liked, but who probably wasn't notable enough for an article- and discovered that an article existed already! I did my best to improve and source it, but while he's a well known filksinger, I'm not sure whether I've succeeded in helping the article make it past WP:BIO. So I'm offering the article to the community for judgement. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Tools Ltd[edit]

Quality Tools Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a company, needs to show that this company meets WP:CORP. Contested speedy deletion. --W.marsh 18:15, 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Nova[edit]

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

Not notable. Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Epbr123 18:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prolific and popular model in Japan in very popular genre. And regarding the "Are you another one..." comment, please keep it civil. --Oakshade 01:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you know she is a prolific and popular model in Japan? Epbr123 01:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm assuming good faith by Dekkappai's stipulation. I'm not a Japanese reader, but I'm not going to discount anything written about her in that language just becuase I can't see or read it myself. --Oakshade 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Owen[edit]

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

Not notable. Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. She has not been covered by multiple sources which are independent and reliable. Epbr123 18:39, 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 keep and move. Daniel Bryant 04:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grozny OMON fratercide incident[edit]

Grozny OMON fratercide incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is written as if it covers a factual, notable event, but if that were true, it should have some reference from Google to the incident, and I didn't find any. Maybe some of our Russian editors can verify the story; else it should be deleted for failing WP:ATT. YechielMan 18:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you read the sources? They're in english and confirm that it happened. Further, this is the equivalent in Russia of major American Blue on Blue casualties, which are certainly newsworthy/encyclopedic. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 23:48, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providence Elementary School[edit]

Providence Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Completely non-notable elementary school killing sparrows 18:39, 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 keep. Veinor (talk to me) 13:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Rhodes[edit]

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

Not notable. Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Keep - I think her two TV talk show appearances prove her notability. She is also possibly the top British female pornstar at the moment. Epbr123 19:49, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgeville High School[edit]

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

Appears to be a relatively non-notable high school in Wisconsin. Ryanjunk 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page about a coach and teacher from this school:

John "Weenie" Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oh, OK, it used to be a part (a big part) of the Dodgeville, Wisconsin article. Noroton 03:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not trying to make a point, please WP:AGF. Also other articles existing is not an argument to keep this one. This article is currently unsourced and at any rate needs massive cleanup of the extensive detail of this high school's recent sports record. I find it very unlikely that the fact that the Dodgeville boy's basketball team was 8-13 under coach Tank in 1999 is either encyclopedic or of interest to anyone outside of Dodgeville. Ryanjunk 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me second third that sentiment. A bright line criteria would save us all a lot of time and energy. --Butseriouslyfolks 09:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read your essay and found it very interesting. I still disagree, though. The main guideline for notability, at WP:N gives the primary criterion for notability: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject." Regardless of how notable a secondary school is to its students (and I am not arguing that a school does not play a significant role in one's life), nearly none of them are featured in non-trivial works. My grandmother is extremely notable and important to the members of my family, but she certainly is not notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. The article in question has only one independent source: the first two are merely directories, the next three are created by the school itself, and the one semi-independent source is from the local town paper. Ryanjunk 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:N is a guideline, and a heavily disputed one at that, not a policy. Just because an article does not meet the particular criterion you quote, it should not be deleted. If we deleted everything that was not "the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works" then we would delete a large portion of the articles on Wikipedia and lose much information for the sake of the dogmatism and inflexibility of a handful of deletionists who seem to believe that it is better to shrink Wikipedia than to expand it. I'd be the first to say that there is a lot of junk on Wikipedia - utterly pointless rubbish that deserves to be deleted. But I do not think that even the most fanatical deletionist could claim with any credibility that an article about a school was pointless rubbish. And I tire of saying that lack of sources is not a reason for deletion - if its existence is verifiable, which a school's blatantly is, then it is perfectly acceptable to keep it, even as a stub (which, as I also tire of reiterating, is a perfectly acceptable form of article). Incidentally, I fear you didn't read my essay properly - your grandmother is notable to a few members of your family, not to thousands of current and former pupils and to the local community as a school is - I thought I made that point quite clearly with the house analogy. I really wish people would direct their efforts towards what genuinely needs to be deleted and not what a disputed guideline says might be deleted. -- Necrothesp 18:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be technical about "guidelines vs. policies", we're in a weird place. The official deletion policy lists as a reason for deletion: "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline." So we have an official policy which points to a "heavily disputed" policy. I'm not trying to be "dogmatic and inflexible" here, I just don't know that Wikipedia is the proper place for a school to keep detailed records of its sports program. Assume good faith, please. If we really must have a stub article about every single secondary school on the face of the earth, so be it. Just make it a stub without piles of crufty sports trivia, please. To borrow from John Hodgman, for further details on sports, please consult every other aspect of our culture. As for my grandmother, you don't know how big my family is. If my extended family included thousands of people, would she then merit an article? Finally, lack of sources is definitively a reason for deletion. Just the ability to verify that something exists is not enough to make that something article-worthy. Every single citizen of the United States verifiably exists, but certainly not all are worthy of an article. This is why we have notability guidelines, and why it is an official policy that those topics which are not notable are subject to deletion. If there is a "large portion" of Wikipedia which needs to be deleted due to being unsourced, then it should be deleted, not used as an argument to keep other stuff. Ryanjunk 20:11, 20 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.

Have we decided to keep this article like we did the Dodgeville School District? John "Weenie" Wilson still says considered for deletion. I have more information I would like to add. So is the article to stay or go? Frydoggnt55 15:17, 27 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 Procedural keep, with recommendation to merge and redirect (this can be done by editors without requiring an AfD result). Newyorkbrad 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Shephard[edit]

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

While I am in favour of other recent Lost characters pages being created (Rousseau, Friendly, Alex etc.) the line has to be drawn somewhere. Sarah only appears in the flashbacks of one character, and 4 episodes out of the whole series are not enough to justify her own article. Tphi 20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted as non-notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker of the Suns[edit]

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

Let me begin by saying I wrote this article some time ago but now realize it to be unworthy of its own article. It's poorly written and fancrufty, and most of the characters who have held the position don't have an article and if they do they'll probably be trimmed and redirected as well. Also, I am including the articles that redirect there, Speaker of the Sun and Speaker of the Sun and Stars. DoomsDay349 20:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per creator/nom ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seeing as how you're the only major contributor to the article, you can ask for a speedy deletion under criteria G7 if you wish (all other contributions to the article didn't add anything that I saw)--UsaSatsui 00:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, but there were other contributors (maybe not major) and I just feel better about this avenue. DoomsDay349 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete What UsaSatsui said. Also, those other editors can object and take the speedy delete tag off if they object. That route would save a lot of other people the trouble of looking at this, commenting, voting, and of an admin doing extra work. Noroton 00:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I guess if people feel that way about it, I'll put it up for speedy. DoomsDay349 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per creator/nom (btw, better for the process to conclude now that it's been initiated). Orderinchaos78 03:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to the appropriate Dragonlance page. FrozenPurpleCube 04:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 22:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker of the Stars[edit]

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

Let me begin by saying I wrote this article some time ago but now realize it to be unworthy of its own article. It's poorly written and fancrufty, and most of the characters who have held the position don't have an article and if they do they'll probably be trimmed and redirected as well. DoomsDay349 20:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per creator/nom ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per creator/nom. Orderinchaos78 03:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to the appropriate Dragonlance article. I think describing this title is a reasonable thing to do. FrozenPurpleCube 04:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Tom harrison[32]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginahead[edit]

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

Neologism. entirely OR. Dicdef. No references. Should be speedied but doesn't seem to fit any of the categories. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Briguy also made childish attacks against User:Bobjones21 who made this article. They're obviously pals. — coelacan — 21:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under WP:SNOW. I'd reiterate NFT if it wasn't already painfully obvious. — coelacan — 21:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Finngall 21:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've never heard the term. Even if it exists, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Canthusus 21:58, 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 all. Majorly (o rly?) 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 2007 - Ladies Downhill 1st Training[edit]

FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 2007 - Ladies Downhill 1st Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 2007 - Ladies Downhill 2nd Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 2007 - Men's Downhill 1st Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 2007 - Men's Downhill 2nd Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So we cover training sessions now? No, they are way too insignificant, and Wikipedia is not a database of everything that has ever happened. The word fancruft comes to mind. Punkmorten 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete entirely unencyclopedic and non notable. We don't even cover all championships, let alone traing sessions. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 23:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All training sessions. Non notable. Spy1986 08:58, 20 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 10:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMike[edit]

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

Contested prod (I'd added it). This is a neologism of sorts which claims notability but is unreferenced. Google, as I'm sure you can imagine in this situation, isn't much use, since "iMike" seems to yield results about a microphone for Apple products and various Apple fans called Michael. Certainly nothing about a film or an internet fad that I can see. I had originally considered speedying it as an attack page, but "Mike" is a sufficiently common name that it's probably not designed to insult one particular person. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete based on WP:NFTObina 23:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fad, and some content is a possible Hoax. --Sigma 7 14:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this was indeed featured in several Canadian films, and spawned an "internet fad," then there should be some readily-available internet sources. But no matter the combination of words and minus-words I used on Google, I still could find nothing. If the author provides some sources before the end of this AfD, I might change my mind. But for now, this article fails WP:ATT, and seems to be a non-notable neologism to boot. Given the number of chatroom and social-network usernames that "iMike" turned up in on Google, I agree with the nominator that this is probably a hoax attack page of some sort. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:27, 21 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?) 22:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POLINCO[edit]

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

Article about a Dutch web forum which has been sourceless for about 1.5 years. No sources listed in the article and the forum as of 1/2 year ago only had 500-some members according to the last AFD (link here). Also, if you want to talk about number of threads/messages/etc, this forum has pretty few. Delete - as I don't see what makes this anymore notable than an average web forum. Wickethewok 22:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 500 members = non notable. My forum doesn't warrant inclusion and we have well over 1000 members. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 23:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N, can't find any sources for it. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the Netherlands this forum has a hard time fighting political correctness. Last member count is 769. Polinco remains a nuisance to the political establishment, resulting in questions asked in parliament on how to tackle Polinco's ambitions to be the only true free speak website in the Netherlands and Flanders. Adelphos 21:40, 19 March 2007 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Blair[edit]

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

Not notable actress. Minor parts only. Appears to violate WP:COI also Selket Talk 23:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We can easily recreate when/if she gets a big part.Obina 23:34, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 22:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osbrink Talent Agency[edit]

Osbrink Talent Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was removed from prod. This agency fails primary notability criteria and WP:CORP. Though there are 4 sources listed, none are non trivial reliable sources. Their own web site and IMDP are not reliable for notability, and the other 2 are just listings (=trivial). Where is the LA Times article on this agency? I'm sure this is a nice agency, but it is a non notable small business Obina 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spammy, as well as per nom ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 23:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. Less than 600 ghits, a few in news archives, but they were all about actors being represented by the agency. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:54, 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. Majorly (o rly?) 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Dunn[edit]

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

Individual is non-notable. Page creator seems to be making a practice of creating Wikipedia articles that are simply obituaries of non-notable individuals. Mwelch 23:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable by 66 combat missions, three Distinguished Flying Crosses, and nine Air Medals, successful businessman, college student body president, Pioneer of the Year in his county. There are at least two articles in the Clovis, New Mexico, newspaper (in 2005 and after his death) about Mr. Dunn.

Billy Hathorn 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, "notable in Portales", a town of 11,000, speaks for itself. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a population limit on where a notable person may come? Is there a place for local history on Wikipedia?

Billy Hathorn 16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's not about how small is the population from which they come. It's about (how many times does this need to be said?) their overall notability, per Wikipedia's policies. k.d. lang, for example, is from a town of about 650, if I recall correctly. Her overall notability is nonetheless unquestionable. Ronny Cox is apparently from this same town that Preston Dunn is. No one is questioning the notability of Ronny Cox. Preston Dunn, on the other hand . . . is on just not notable. Local history on Wikipedia? What is wrong with right here? Mwelch 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Three DFCs and nine Air Medals. If he had spent those four years playing for the Boston Red Sox, pitched nine shutouts against the dreaded Yankees and appeared in three All-Star games, I'm sure that Mwelch would never have nominated this article for deletion. But because Preston Dunn did something so mundane as risking his life for his country, he is judged to be "not notable." It is a sad, sad commentary on the values of the average Wikipedia editor. Justin88 01:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Your personal attacks upon me don't change the fact that he doesn't meet a single WP:BIO requirement. Of course I would not nominate him for deletion if he spent four years playing for the Red Sox, pitched nine shutouts against the Yankees and appeared in three All-Star games . . . because he then clearly and unequivocally would meet the requiremens of WP:BIO. So since you apparently have no policy-based reasoning to offer, feel free to direct your future values-based personal attacks to the makers of Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Mwelch 01:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-on comment. For anyone following this who might be more interested in actually addressing Wikipedia polices on military medal winners than in just hurling around insults at fellow editors, you may want to consider bringing up the subject at the talk page of WP:BIO. Prveious discussions viewbale in that talk page's archives indicate a sentiment than an award such as the Medal of Honor would satisfy notability, but that "lesser" awards would not. But if anyone thinks there is a legitimate case to be made for those "lesser" awards being sufficient for notability, then that talk page might be a good place to do so. Mwelch 22:22, 21 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 10:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting of Calvin and Hobbes[edit]

Setting of Calvin and Hobbes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of speculative observations as to the location of Calvin's hometown. Fails WP:OR and WP:V. References do not support claims made in article or are derivative OR sources. UnfriendlyFire 00:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and move about half of the content to a short section in the Calvin and Hobbes article. It's kind of interesting, but several of the points seem to nail down the idea that Calvin is from Chagrin Falls, Ohio, where, surprise, surprise, the cartoonist grew up. Noroton 00:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Noroton. I was highly amused by Image:Slideohio.jpg, which labels a red circle apparently centered near Louisville, Kentucky as the "approximate location of Ohio". BJAODN for images? -- Dhartung | Talk 05:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my notes in the discussion page. It's all completely speculative and the matter is already covered in Calvin and Hobbes. Mcr29 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deltete. It is quite interesting, from a fan's point of view, but it's also OR. Editing Maniac 17:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely OR. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All WP:OR The Placebo Effect 00:46, 21 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, who give a much better argument. Daniel Bryant 04:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Gannaway[edit]

William S. Gannaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Individual is non-notable. Page creator seems to be making a practice of creating Wikipedia articles that are simply obituaries of non-notable individuals.

  • Comment. Really? How? There are three "references". One is a paid obituary. The other two actually make absolutely no mention of him in any way. And even if they did, they aren't the kind of references (independent secondary sources) required by WP:BIO. Mwelch 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is as decorated WW2 veteran of 78 missions, DFC, Air Medal, elected school board member with 24 years service, work with the disabled, surely notable in Monroe, LA.

````

  • Comment. So what if he's surely notable in Monroe, LA? That seems to be an argument you use frequently in defense of biographies of disputed notability: that the subject is notable in their corner of the world. But that argument flies directly in the face of actual Wikipedia guidelines, namely that notability, for Wikipeida's purposes, is NOT subjective. Quoting the guideline: "Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether 'the world' has judged a topic to be notable". Note that it says "the world", not "the subject's home town". The military medals are a more objective issue, at least. But if we're going to say those satisify the notability requirement, then it should be in the WP:BIO guidelines. (and we should be prepared to accept a flood of new biographies that currently are not acceptable). Mwelch 20:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination; fails WP:BIO. Billy Hathorn, it's unfortunate that you seem to have the chops to create well-formatted biographical articles, but you use this skill on articles that are bound to eventually be deleted. Please, please, please familiarize yourself with WP:ATT and WP:BIO before creating any new articles. Your local perception of notability is really not valid. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as non-notable. The references are completely inadequate. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 21:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The DFC and the Air Medal should be sufficient to rank Bill Gannaway at least as notable as a supporting actor from "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure," don't you agree? Justin88 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The policy here on notability is WP:BIO. And no, it does not agree. Mwelch 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment WP:BIO says politicians are notable when they "have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures. (or) Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." He was elected to 5 4-year terms on the school board, and according to his obituary held a few other important local board positions... so if there had been significant local press coverage of this local politician during his active lifetime, would that be sufficient? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If such significant prese sources, acceptable to WP:ATT, could be cited, then absolutely. That would meet the WP:BIO guidelines. I'd just note here that the author has a history of creating biography articles of people who do not seem to meet WP:BIO and using as his primary sources things (such as the person's paid obituary or the author's personal e-mail exchanges with the inidividual) that are not acceptable per WP:ATT. He's been asked not to do this, but so far, seems undeterred in the practice. So in my opinion, there didn't seem to be much reason to expect differently with this article. If he would like to claim, though, that this article is an exception, and that indeed in this case, such WP:ATT-acceptable sources are available and that he intends to cite them, I'd assume the good faith of such claims and change my vote. Mwelch 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the clarification. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 20:02, 22 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 Riana[33]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne L. DuBose[edit]

Wayne L. DuBose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Inidividual is not notable. Lead makes some attempt to assert notability (e.g. "prominent menber . . ."), but subject does not pass WP:N Mwelch 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mwelch 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Upon researching the article's creator a bit more, I see that he actually created this article before under Wayne DuBose. That article was deleted for non-notability, and the creator, Billy Hathorn has now re-created it here. He seems to have created literally dozens of biographical articles over the past year or so, some for people of legitimate notability but many not. Mwelch 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material (Note that admin closing last case has been inactive since Oct 2006, and so has not been notified). Pete.Hurd 01:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Pete.Hurd. So tagged. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More