The result was redirected in parallel AfD debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/++ungood;. --ais523 14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A dictdef for a geek joke. This has no real potential for expansion (a bunch of sources have been added that supposedly show notability, but they're just pictures of notable people or fansites), and no real hope for an encyclopedia article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A vague list with no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. There is no definition of success and the article seems to have an English speaking county / US bias. It's basically uncited and probably unverifiable for the aircraft listed. As a side note, it was prod'd but de-prod'd by an anon user and the initial contributor of the article is now indef blocked. Dual Freq 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no proof that any real relationship, a side from being signed to the same label, exists to be considred an "extended family". Ted87 00:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Wizardman 00:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New, up-and-coming hip-hop artist. No albums released, though there's assertion from the fact that there are participation credits for some numbers as well as working on a new hip-hop group. Still, issues with WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Possible WP:COI, but I find this doubtful. Dennisthe2 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bold texterror have been Corrected. Lenny Diko has released an LP that was fully pressed. And the Violative Cause LP's barcode is 7553100167. He has worked with artists such as LuckyIam, Moka Only, Josh Martinez, DJ Moves, etc.... I think that with the notables up there removed his article is now ok (UTC)
Bold textthere seem be a lot of artists on here that have released on an Independent label? I will forward him your message of luck though thanks!
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New, up-and-coming hip-hop artist. No albums released, though there's assertion from the fact that there are participation credits for some numbers as well as working on a new hip-hop group. Still, issues with WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Possible WP:COI, but I find this doubtful. Dennisthe2 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This game is still in beta and I don't believe it has any reliable sources in order to meet attribution. Google brings up no reliable independent non-trivial sources. Wafulz 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Violates WP:NOR, and indiscriminate information. Just a list of alleged appearances of a particular helicopter in films, TV, etc. No more significant than having a list of unrelated films that just happen to feature Porsche 928.
I am also nominating :AH-64 Apache in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reasons. Ironically there is some hidden text in the article quoting the "indiscriminate collection" policy, just before the list proceeds to be just that.
If there are any films or video games that are specifically about these helicopters, they can be merged into the helicopters' own articles. Saikokira 00:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the reasons for deletion, in case anyone is under the impression this article only violates WP:NOR;
Saikokira 04:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an example of what we do take out every day from [[WP:AIR} articles. It was added to the F-22 Raptor article, and deleted by another editor:
comment to above: The above sub-paragraph is to help divide this AfD for perusal and editing reasons. I couldn't find my comment in this long debate so here is my comment to my previous statement and reply to the above question from RGTraynor. I am not presuming, absent any attribution, that all those movies which supposedly have UH-60s in them actually do. Those movies are documents in of themself and generally, for those people that stay to the end of a movie at the cinema, you can see the credits. Those credits will indicate what type of vehicles where used in a given movie. Perhaps you are confusing original research a synthesis of because A (image of UH-60) and B(image of UH-60 in movie) then movie has UH-60. I don't know but, according to me such a synthesis would and should be pretty obvious and no different than the commonly accept idea "the sky is blue." Perhaps there is a mix up here on the interpretation of what wikipedia is and is not. A movie is a generally considered a reliable source of information, in fact it is the primary source. Nevertheless here is a link to a secondary source which states which movies use a helicopter. And here is a published comments, which has been peer reviewed, that state that there was a black hawk in this movie. --CyclePat 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NOR. Article states the "criteria used for this list are, in order of importance: box office, awards, reference on other "best-of" lists, widely acknowledged influence", etc. That's "in order of importance" according to the opinion User:Avt tor, the creator and only contributor to this list. Avt tor has compiled it based on his own mysterious formula, while referring to such "reliable" sources as IMDb users' ratings.
WP:NOR states that unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material... (including) interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication.
Also, a pointless duplication of a topic fairly well covered in List of notable science fiction films. Saikokira 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete in popular culture, to borrow a familiar line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate information. It's not immediately clear what this article is specifically about. It seems to be 4 seperate articles about 4 unrelated species, from 4 different and unrelated films: The Descent, The Cave, an unspecifified film featuring "The Grue" (the Riddick films), and the Mimic films. Article needs to sent back to Subterranea. Saikokira 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded this, but quickly discovered it had already been prodded. Anyway, I think it's unencyclopedic and has little potential for improvement. It is also an orphan, with no pages at all linking to it. - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only a couple of Bangladeshi private universities of dubious academic credibility offer the course, and only a couple of books written by non-notable Bangladeshi authors are available on the subject. Not good enough for a Wikipedia entry. Aditya Kabir 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: How do you know that couple of Universities in Bangladesh, offer the course? And How do you know it's only written by Bnagladeshi authors? It's not the topic of some authors. It's related to Mass media and Mass communication as well as other media related topic. --NAHID 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be OR and NEO, only ghits are article creators forum posts, no references killing sparrows 01:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without redirect per Starblind. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable Model United Nations of around only 300 students. There are dozens of Model UNs listed at Regional organizers and events of Model United Nations, some with thousands of participants for many decades, and none with an article. Delete worst case, redirect, best case. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hellio as the coordinator of Singapore Model United Nations, I say this is an organzation, nor a company, product, etc. It is notable annual event with significant meanings as it combines the locality of Singapore with International schools and international concepts (i.e. the UN) to achieve alternative learning through experience and nationwide communication of international matters.--Francois Cornu 12:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
````` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs) 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Williams_Hearn -- Here is a defeated congressional candidate with a Wikipedia story, but it is only a stub. The Strickland story is detailed. Does Gloria Williams Hearn have notability other than her losing campaigns for office? Are full articles on Wikipedia judge more strictly than stubs?
Billy Hathorn 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested by Teppix (talk · contribs) whose first 3 edits here have consisted of removing prod tags I put up... Content is utterly unverifiable. Non-notable game invented in 1998 and played solely in the hometown of inventor. No third-party coverage whatsoever. Pascal.Tesson 01:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Shimeru 08:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability Chronos567 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Hathorn 02:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested by Teppix (talk · contribs) whose sole contributions to date have been the removal of three proposed deletions I had put up. Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we should not have stubs about planned documentaries unless they are so widely anticipated that they already have received non-trivial third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL, at this point, this film is not notable, and the article doesn't even make any assertions that it is. Mwelch 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not only is the proposed documentary not notable, but, none of the three collaborators mentioned seems to be either. Keesiewonder talk 01:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub article from April 2006 on a fairly low circulation student rag. No assertion of notability, and advertisement in tone. Prod contested because "the article is not harming anyone. Students from this school may begin to like Wikipedia and even consider editing Wikipedia more if they see their newspaper has an article of its own" Ohconfucius 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant list that doesn't actually link to any articles. Even if it did contain links, still not a notable enough topic (documentary films about the Korean War, not the Korean War itself) to deserve a list.
Also nominating :List of documentary films about the Japanese American internment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reasons, although that list manages to have one link in it. Saikokira 01:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Shimeru 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reposted page, originally at Jay M Solomon. I speedied this as a repost, but was denied because the original page had been speedy deleted and not subject to an AfD. The subject is utterly non-notable and is one of countless advocates for countless issues worldwide. Wikipedia is not a place to store your personal resume, and this article certainly looks like an advertisement. A G search for "Jay Solomon" bully (since the name is fairly common) yields less than 200 results. I can think of no reason why this page should be kept. Chabuk [ T • C ] 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
last time i checked, wikipedia is a place where people search for, and find information on a wide range of people, places and issues. this article certainly falls into wikipedia's raison d'etre. search wiki and you will find COUNTLESS other articles like this one. if you're going to delete one, you better delete them all. i think that would be a tragety for wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).
This article is valuable and should not be deleted. There is no reason for it's deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).
what is with wiki all over the news these days? they're going nuts for accuracy... in the end, this just leads to useful information being deleted. there is nothing in the wikipedia deletion policy that justifies removing this article. the subject is relevant and noteworthy.
nothing. but you are not claiming that this article is inaccurate, are you? you're claiming that it has no relevance. that is simply not the case. check through wikipedia. you will see countless similar enteries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).
I too agree that this page should not be deleted. Wikipedia is a form for information - all information; not just the information that certain editors wish to promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs)
The result was Speedy deleted by me. This article's author has a conflict of interest. There are insurmountable notability concerns. Also, the author states that he created this page to allow developers to work on the project. - Richard Cavell 03:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable software. No sign of any third-party reliable coverage. The creator of the page is the creator of the software and claims on the article's talk page "My goal is to make this CRM system open-source. This page is a step forward toward that goal. If this page be deleted it will be very difficult to make this great CRM system open-source." To put it mildly I find that claim to have little credibility. Pascal.Tesson 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Mike 7. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition at best. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No notability can be deduced from the article, no references are given (nor did I manage to find anything on the subject). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than running for mayor of a large city, he doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements per WP:NOTE Delete Editing Maniac 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate list: any video game "involving" China. First on the list is Civilization II, which has the Statue of Liberty on the cover, and according to Civilization_II#Civilizations China is just one of 21 different civilizations in the game, which shows how indiscriminate this list is. Saikokira 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the league as a whole may be notable, the individual seasons are not. Mattinbgn/ talk 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages as they are subsets of the above article and as such non notable:
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. -- Scientizzle 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. -- Scientizzle 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CSD A7 by Deiz (talk · contribs); page protected. Scientizzle 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De-proded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. -- Scientizzle 02:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CSD A7 by Deiz (talk · contribs); page protected. Scientizzle 03:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De-prodded. An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. Scientizzle 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An album yet to be released by a non-notable artist, signed by a non-notable label. Fails WP:A, WP:MUSIC & Wikipedia is not a crytal ball. Scientizzle 02:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, no context or assertion of notability. --Coredesat 07:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reprod. Rationale was "non-notable site - forum has less than 50 posts on each topic". Procedural, abstain. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deletion by me. The article is unsourced, unverifiable, and likely a hoax. Its subject is not notable and the parts mentioned by Dennisthe2 indicate that it might well be original research and borders on things-made-up-in-school-one-day. Best just to rub it out. - Richard Cavell 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced, and might be a hoax. John254 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no proof that such an incident occurred, no Google hits outside of Wikipedia, likely hoax. Khoikhoi 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 20:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Sportsteam competing in the under 18's age group of the TAC Cup Garrie 03:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains a lot of POV, unsourced nonsense. Furthermore, many of the bullet points have little to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001. The page is in need of some serious editing after which I do not believe the article will have enough information to stand alone. For these reasons, I have nominated the article for deletion. Pablothegreat85 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Wizardman 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional substub on new website. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An extra source is added + Alexa information Kalvitz 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much a list of indiscriminate information. Most of this information one can already find on either an individual character or game's article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Incomplete nomination by 69.244.98.171 (talk · contribs). His comment on Talk:Jonathan Callan was: "the comment by the author of the article above is signed Roboliberal. A quick google search of the keyword Roboliberal reveals this site, which tends to indicate that Roboliberal is Jonathan Callan, the subject of this article, and is attempting to write an autobiographical article while fooling the Wiki community into thinking he's just a fanboy." Procedural nomination, no opinion yet. cab 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-Roboliberal
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, only example of use is POV, gsearch show no use outside of refs to neo creator killing sparrows 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 11:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nearly no encyclopaedic value in this article, as firstly such things do not really belong in a separate fork of this nature; and secondarily it seems unclear to me how this article could ever be written in an informative manner as a factual piece. In fact, what it is covering is perhaps "non-mainstream theories" versus conspiracy theorism, and writing articles very specifically on generalised classes of such matters is highly questionable. Consequently, I feel deletion is the only viable option, as it is difficult to see how it could be written in an NPOV manner. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn - since it seems I hadn't really considered this very well, considering the comments below. Apologies for wasting everyone's time. Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic listcruft, filled with links to non-notable companies. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Leuko 06:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by ChrisGriswold[22]. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 13:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fancruft, probable self-promotion Rama 07:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can search his name in any of the items below to confirm the validity of his claims.
http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?res=9A05E3DB163DEF34BC4D52DFB667838A669EDE http://imdb.com/title/tt0807065/ http://www.amazon.fr/Te-Hine-Manea-Polyn%C3%A9siennes-fran%C3%A7ais-anglais/dp/2909790320 http://www.fashion-planet.com/sept98/features/sephorarocks/sephora.html http://www.search.com/reference/Gia_Carangi http://www.vickimarch.com/clients/marchv/pages/experience.shtml http://www.tahitiphilatelie.pf/details_timbres.php?annee=2007&id=152&chglangue=us http://www.answers.com/topic/carey-lowell
Blatant self-promotion / advertising. Prolific name dropping but are there actually any links to anything that references the guy? -- RHaworth 07:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you try checking: www.google.com / www.imdb.com / www.johnstember.com / or contact any of the people mentioned for references. We are not trying to promote but simply inform which is what we believe an encyclopedia is for unless you think otherwise. We have taken exactly the same format as used on many other pages including john's ex-wife's carey lowell. if your response is so negative why don't you try offering some advice ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Stember (talk • contribs) 08:09, March 19, 2007
The result was Speedy delete A7 by ChrisGriswold. Leuko 08:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable webcomic. Article offers no sources as to why this particular comic is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. —Ocatecir Talk 07:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This band does not appear to be at all notable. Note that if this page is removed then the members' pages should probably also be removed. Robinson weijman 07:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable/unattributable neologism. Zero G-Hits. Leuko 08:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article. I get 358 Google hits for the name. The most salient claims to notability seem to be the awards but I am unable to confirm them from reliable third party sources (3 Google hits for "Robert Graves poetry award", 1 Google hit for "Edgeworth Prize for poetry"). No hits at Amazon.com for "Kudryavitsky", Amazon.co.uk has an entry for A Night in the Nabokov Hotel with a publication date this month and a sales rank of 1,036,009. Haukur 08:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's fame for you: Aaron John Waltke is currently recognized as the Guinness World Record holder for the most t-shirts worn at one time by a single human being... No. really. Ludicrously trivial bid for fame. PROD tag added, but removed by creator on WP:INN grounds -- about which see also Matt McAllister and its brand-new AFD. Calton | Talk 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, not to question the site's motives, only it's notability as a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:WEB criterion. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook groups, even large ones, are not notable. The references provided are not from reliable sources. DWaterson 10:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A senior minister of some church who has apparently self-published a two books. This does not appear particularly notable. Judged by the tone of the article, it is written by people of his church in conflict of interest. >Radiant< 10:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has a couple of published books and multiple newspaper articles so I don't think it has a notability problem, but still it needs some work I would think. Billymumphry 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was list as CSD g4. Non-admin close. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – My proposal of speedy deletion for this page was based on an incorrect premise. Article was not recreated as Ozgod stipulated (content was: '((db-repost))Joseph Ryan (born 1970) is a photographer best known for his work with the Grateful Dead (1992-2001) and the reuniting of [[B...'). Speedy deletion should have been proposed per CSD a7, as this content is not the same as the content of the article nominated in the AfD process (content was: '((db-bio))Joseph Ryan, Born in February 1991, (Day unknown) is the founder of Shakirism. He worships Shakira. So far, he is the only known worshippe...'). My apologies for any confusion this has caused. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was recreated and fails to meet WP:Notability Ozgod 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to be notable. Zero google hits, might be even hoax Alex Bakharev 10:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page is about an obscure language which is a subset of Esperanto. Supposedly the grammar is still incomplete. It was invented last year, and the author or someone close to the project wants extra exposure here on Wikipedia. Two PROD templates have been placed on the page, one by me, one by someone else. Both have been blanked by the original author, without the concerns being addressed. -- Yekrats 10:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted, CSD-A11. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable corporation. If their business model is notable they should be merged somewhere Alex Bakharev 10:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable desert, only one ghit Alex Bakharev 11:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 11:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep after rewrite and addition of sources. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating two articles, which appear to be of the same organisation. The more recent one has been notability-tagged for 3 months, and the only activity since the tagging has been an act of vandalism and the reversion thereof. The older one has seen minimal activity since its creation, the majority of which being non-content edits.
My searches of Google find minimal information regarding the organisation, with 258 from 340 total hits first page last page, several of which refer to the "Laboratory Animal Management Association" (LAMA). The few links I looked at do not assert the notability of the subject, and I cannot attribute any of the information through third-party sources, let alone find any reliable ones from my brief scan. -- saberwyn 11:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization that has conducted a seminar, organized a dinner, and conducted some awareness programs. Fails WP:ORG. There are very few external links/references, which are trivial, and don't establish notability: [27] is written by the Secretary-General of the PDIP, Rajkumar Kanagasingam. Image:Dianaincorporation.jpg is notice for application in a newspaper. [28] says that it has conducted awareness programs. [29] mentions it once, saying that it jointly organized a dinner event. Googling returns Wikipedia mirrors, except this, which mentions it once for the dinner event. utcursch | talk 12:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not think this philosopher is notable. Zero ghits, might be a Hoax. Even Hpolizim gives zero ghits, very unlikely it is a Finnish first name Alex Bakharev 12:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When first nominated for deletion, the article was really long, but was a real mess because its content was very un-encyclopedically disposed. The discussion lead to a "Keep", since the article was still young (it was marked for deletion on its first day) and seemed to be possible to develop. Three months later, it was again nominated for deletion because the article hadn't gotten better in the elapsed time. The result was "No concensus", because some thought that it should be deleted, and others thought that it should be rewritten. Now, considering that we are five months later, and the article is in no way better than it was for the first and the second nomination (unsourced or dubiously sourced statements, unencyclopaedic content), I therefore propose it for deletion. There is no real contributor interested in making this article better with reliable sources, NPOV, and everything that an article as controversial as a comparison of two major operating systems need. The almost sole contributors to the article are anonymous users throwing in their opinions or ideas, regardless of whether it is encyclopaedic or not, or whether it is sourced or not. My opinion : this article is doomed to fail, as it is the subject of a religious war for many people, and cannot gather "facts" to make a real comparison of operating systems. I will never become a good article in my opinion. Dravick 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge this and GC-set into Closure with a twist and redirect thereto. Avi 03:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unintelligible, probably with typos carried over from the original source, [31]; see Talk:Cwatset. Perhaps a new article should be written on the subject, but it would have to be reliably sourced and not nonsense. Quuxplusone 18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are mere redirect pages:
Delete. This article seems to have been voted for deletion once already (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ponderosa_Elementary_School) but has been recreated. – sgeureka t•c 10:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable John Foxe 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not-notable web "show" JohnCub 23:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Avi 04:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:BIO, as he is still just a high school basketball player and has not "played at the highest level of competition" Thomas.macmillan 21:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn -Obli (Talk)? 01:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: i guess its best to close the discussion now. and just let it be on.--Matrix17 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Avi 04:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable → R Young {yakłtalk} 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A 102-year-old man who claims to be a WWI veteran, but for whom no proof has been offered, is not notable.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 13:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Zazaban 18:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more. What a mess. Delete Cgingold 21:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was no consensus for any action. Majorly (o rly?) 12:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ciudad Real Torre Solar is yet another attempt of promotion of the Solar Tower®. For an extensive discussion of this issue, see Talk:Solar updraft tower as well as Talk:Energy tower (downdraft). There have been numerous attempts to promote this technology on Wikipedia pages, apparently trying to influence public opinion to raise money, be it from public or private sources. Looking carefully over the published material one quickly finds out that the energy conversion efficiency of the Solar Tower is far lower than competing solar thermal energy technology, and that the Cost of Energy (cents/kWh) is likely to end up 5x higher than other alternative sources of energy. Now the Ciudad Real Torre Solar is being promoted, an apparent attempt to promote yet another version of the Solar Tower. The only source of information is a blog, AFAIK there are no concrete plans to built one, all there is is a "proposal". So until it is actually built, and in working order this should be considered "promotion", and does not belong in Wikipedia JdH 13:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT - WP is not a game guide The content is strictly stuff one would find in a GameFAQ or similar manual, regardless of the quality of writing. The technical information about Gears of War multiplayer is already covered in the main article Gears of War Masem 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted (A7) by ChrisGriswold. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article meets no notability criteria and cites no sources HokieRNB 13:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy redirect to Meta noise. The article was obviously intended to be a duplicate but should be a redirection. - Richard Cavell 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of Meta noise greenrd 14:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 14:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was super speedy snowball barbecue keep. Picaroon 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not meet the standards of an encyclopedia. In addition, the link to the Keeley Hazell unofficial website may be used to solicite visits or income from users of the Wikipedia. Remember, the idea of the AfD process is to build consensus. So, support this deletion nomination, or vote to overturn, but do so with style and grace. Bluestripe 14:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no Google hits for the subject of the article or for any of the people named in it. The article is incoherent - e.g. the last section has warriors marching into Gaul (France) in order to attack Carthage (Africa). There are no references. andy 14:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no independent source and fails to source its statements. and per Jimbo no text is better than having unsourced Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no independent source and fails to source its statements. and per Jimbo no text is better than having unsourced Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep with an indef block on the side. auburnpilot talk 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This console is a joke. It does not deserve its own article. Not only is the article flawed in every way, but Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are the main sellers, not this $250 wannabe console. It’s also a vanity article created by Nintendo for the most part. --Brokendownhondaaccord 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete - CSD G10 Attack page. Avi 13:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources provided. No notability outside of yudelkrinsky.com established. "Yudelism" returns only a single result on google. Article deleted twice earlier today as nonsense and non-notable. Onorem 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - the authors have gone to considerable effort to address the problem of lack of reliable sources, and the article as it stands now is quite different from the ones that were deleted previously. The present article still has problems with conflict of interest and so on, but if it is to be deleted it needs to be given another run at AfD. - Richard Cavell 04:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article at this title deleted in 2005 via an AFD. Subsequent deletions at this title via PROD (1x) and WP:CSD#G11 (2x). When salting was removed, an article was created in less than 48 hours by a user that may have a conflict of interest. Article speedily deleted, but deletion review felt that since the number of google hits has grown by at least an order of magnitude since the 2005 AFD, there might be independent reliable sources from which to build an article. So it is here for consideration. This is a procedural nomination on my part, I offer no opinion on what to do. If deleted again, I think salting again will be needed. GRBerry 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable academic; I considered marking this CSD for no assertion of notability, but for clarity I am bringing it here. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Boyle. Delete. bikeable (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So from this we can see that the academic is notable as they firstly are an academic and secondly they are seen as one of the leaders the field of lantibiotics (lanthionine based drugs). As such they surely must be considered to be important in their own field and to have created a well-known body of work that is both peer reviewed and cited.
So as you said yourself non-notable academic - I feel that here you are displaying your own ignorance and disqualifying yourself from being able to judge these academics.
We can apply this arguement independently to the majority of academics in the world today, each in their own research area will have a specialisation in which they are one of the leading figures. They may not shout their names from the rooftops but they do not need to as they shine forth with their ideas and techniques rather than their brash and vulgar claims, like the majority of popstars and celebrities. So give credit where credit is due and let us get the names of academics out there into the wider world, they will be the ones changing the world and making the future. Alex Jones - Synthesis for all 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I however note that speedy is only for use in incontestable cases of lack of notability (e.g. a beginning graduate student). An academic with published work or a permanent position--which always implies published work--is always worth the looking at. I commend Bikeable for realizing that. Probably if one is really skeptical a WP:PROD is more reasonable, because the 5 day period avoids the chance of a worthwhile article getting deleted without anyone noticing. And another test that does not make sense to me is that someone has to be more notable than oneself. I've seen that argument used here by distinguished professors who think that only the top prize-winners in the field are worth mentioning. There actually are many over-modest academics)DGG 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable wrestling referee. Non-notable as a former wrestler. Just non-notable. (I believe the speedy was improperly removed, as there's still no claim of notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak[36]. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No shit, Sherlock. Deprodded. Weregerbil 16:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN band. The article asserts two "number one hits" in Japan, so I suppose it just barely dodges CSD:A7. Somehow I get a feeling that a Google for "Man glue" will turn up material that's somewhat unrelated to this article. Action Jackson IV 17:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB. Low Alexa rank Computerjoe's talk 17:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list has significant potential to become EXTREMELY bloated. Some states and provinces have hundreds of roundabouts, perhaps even pushing 1000 or more. Considering the frequency of roundabouts throughout North America, I do not see how they are notable enough to all be listed here. Locational references would be needed for every location to prove whether or not it is indeed a roundabout, rotary, circle, or any other variety of circular intersections. In short: it is a long, steep slippery slope. Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Icelandic athlete. One-liner article does not assert notability, google hits result in occasional box scores, copies of the wikipedia pages, or aside mentions in his more famous wife's bio. Tarc 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not specify notability under WP:MUSIC, at least not in any way I can find on the web. Placed a notability tag, which was deleted without significant additions to the page. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 18:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A typically indiscriminate "in popular culture" spinoff article. It is not of encyclopedic value to note that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer references Twinkies several times throughout its run," or that "in an episode of LOST the character Hurley wonders if an endless supply of twinkies are inside of a mysterious hatch." — Krimpet (talk/review) 18:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just a list of external links to organizations (both commercial and non-profit.) I think this is outside the scope of what Wikipedia is meant to be. There are other, better places for a web directory such as this. Apparently, this list has been prodded/deleted/restored. I think an AFD to gauge consensus on this article is warranted. Deli nk 18:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be non-notable software product. First few pages of Google hits mainly appear to be directory-type listings or ads. fchd 18:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to parent articles. Majorly (o rly?) 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of these organizations are notable, and fail WP:ORG. Merge with parent articles and delete. GreenJoe 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not appear to be notable, it is also an orphan. An article concerning the Shrewsbury Radio Amateur Club might be notable enough, and could include this info, but this appears too weak on its own. - Davandron | Talk 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of a dictionary definition. Also, it would be covered in the other articles on specific religions. Also, does it need to be said that to people who believe in something (anything) that people that do no believe as they do are disbelievers? Looks like a POV nightmare waiting to happen.Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No they have to call them "people who believe in something else". If I say I am not a christian or a jew of a muslim how can they then know that there is nothing else where I believe in.
If the bible of quoran speaks about "disbelievers" then they have not the right to call me a "disbeliever" ! They have to keep me out of their ridiculous and dangerous doctrines. If I should me calling "disbeliever" why then not "person who will burns after his death in hell for eternity" !
If they have, if not calling me a disbeliever, to throw there religion onto the scrapheap is their problem. Not mine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Limboot (talk • contribs) 14:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Wizardman 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to pass WP:ATT: No RS/Valid sources to be found in article/from Googling about; WP:N: not the subject of multiple non-trivial sources; WP:RS: see what I wrote about the ATT sourcing--there is none. was nominated once here in mid-2006 and kept but none of the keepers said why in policy it should be kept. The person has apparently also asked for their article to be removed, and they are simply non-notable per our policies/guidelines. Previous Keep/AFD appeared to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT kept which isn't appropriate. Delete as non-notable. - Denny 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When the Dalai Lama wrote a book in 2006 as "Universe in a Single Atom" where was the Wikipedia goon squad of editors mocking the Dalai Lama, yet when Archimedes Plutonium discovered the idea some 16 years earlier, the Wikipedia goon squad is falling all over themselves to mock and harrass AP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-20 04:35:31
Comments on why Wikipedia has been a decade's long demonization of Archimedes Plutonium
Here is what an objective page on Archimedes Plutonium would look like:
quoting what would be an objective page on AP
Archimedes Plutonium born 5 July 1950 with the name Ludwig Poehlmann in Arzberg Germany. (http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/)He earned a B.A. degree in mathematics from University of Cincinnati and a Masters from Utah State University. He was adopted in his teens and had his name changed several times, Ludwig Hansen, then Ludwig van Ludvig, then Ludwig Plutonium and finally Archimedes Plutonium. He is noted for many original ideas in science but his most noteworthy one is the Atom Totality theory. A brief history of this theory during human history follows:
The first idea of a Universe being one single atom appears to have been Democritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus) some 2,400 years ago, one of the founders of the Atomic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory), as referenced by the book "A Short History of Atomism", Joshua C. Gregory, 1931, A.&C. Black Ltd, page 4 "single Democritean atom might even be, so some said, as big as the world. The gigantic Democritean atom, if it ever existed, vanished from the atomic tradition."
Georges Lemaître hinted of the Atom-Totality or Single-Atom-Universe in his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom' first presented in 1927. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre Ironic that Lemaître is credited with the discovery of the Big-Bang theory, and yet he begins the Big-Bang with saying that the total universe starts out as a atom-totality. Ironic that by 1990, the greatest rival to the Big-Bang theory will become the Atom-Totality theory.
Carl Sagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) hinted of the Atom-Totality or Single-Atom-Universe in the idea that the universe can be an elementary particle; as written in his book "Cosmos", 1980, Random House: pages 265-267 "so that an elementary particle, such as an electron, in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to be an entire closed universe."
The Atom-Totality or Single-Atom-Universe does not come into full bloom until November 1990, Archimedes Plutonium announced a full theory of the Atom Totality theory, by stating what chemical element the Universe is specifically-- a big Plutonium Atom and that galaxies are dots of the electron-dot-cloud of this single big plutonium atom. AP states it must be plutonium to satisfy special numbers of physics and mathematics such as the fine-structure-constant, the 2.71 Kelvin cosmic microwave background radiation, quantized galaxy speeds, Sloan Great Wall of galaxies, and the values of (pi) and (e).
References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Structure_Constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Great_Wall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Tifft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eulers_number
Interestingly, Archimedes Plutonium has the first Internet Book where he wrote the entire book and used the Internet to publish it. This first Internet published book is his Atom Totality Universe: Book: "ATOM TOTALITY THEORY REPLACES THE BIG-BANG THEORY OF PHYSICS", Archimedes Plutonium Internet book published 1993-2007 (assimilated in Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.physics,sci.math)
Curiously, the Dalai Lama published a book "Universe in a Single Atom" in 2006 by Time Warner. The Dalai Lama never referenced Archimedes Plutonium but then when does a spiritual leader ever reference and cite the way scientists cite? Reference, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama
end quoting of what would be an objective Wiki page of Archimedes Plutonium
The gang of Wiki editors never demonized Democritus for his say on the Atom Totality.
The gang of Wiki editors never demonized Georges Lemaître on his Wiki page over his Atom Totality.
The gang of Wiki editors never demonized and ad-hominemed Carl Sagan over his say on Atom Totality.
The gang of Wiki editors including Mr. Rubin and Mr. Dudley never demonized nor ad hominemed the Dalai Lama over his Atom Totality.
But when Archimedes Plutonium has a Wiki page, well, the worst in every editor comes out and rushes forth to put any demonizing and tainted and ad hominem and even libel on Archimedes Plutonium. As if the editors, judging from the below want to say just one word about Mr. AP--- call him kook. They do not want to call Democritus, nor Lemaaitre, nor Sagan, nor the Dalai Lama, but when AP appears, then every ugly opinion becomes part of a Wikipedia biography.
The above is a objective entry of Archimedes Plutonium, and why that is almost impossible and difficult for Wiki editors to do is really beyond belief. For the past decade Wiki has done nothing but a joke and mockery and demonization of Archimedes Plutonium.
Currently the References cited on AP's page are inappropriate for they reflect more on the game of demonizing Mr. Plutonium than to objectively understand what he has done. References of Ad Hominem on Mr. Plutonium
3. ^ Ludwig Plutonium in sci.math (Google Group), Ludwig Plutonium, King of the Universe (discussion thread), December 12, 1993
4. ^ Archimedes Plutonium in sci.chem (Google Group), Forge your friends to a subscription list, Xmass greeting card (discussion thread), September 2, 1996
5. ^ Ludwig Plutonium in alt.sci.physics.plutonium (Google Group), Plutonium Atom Totality: The Unification of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics (pages 3-11 of 400) (discussion thread), January 6, 1994
* Kahn, Jennifer (2002-04-01). "Notes from Another Universe". Discover. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.
* Scott, Joseph C. "Sometime-scientist Plutonium says science is 'gobbledygook'", The Dartmouth, 1997-09-25.
None of the above references focus on his noteworthiness of his ATom Totality. Neither Kahn nor Scott ever attack Democritus for his Atomic Theory and Atom Totality, neither Kahn nor Scott ever attack Carl Sagan for his Atom Totality of elementary particle, and neither does Kahn nor Scott attack Lemaitre for his Atom Totality. But then again the reason neither Kahn or Scott attacks Democritus, or Sagan or Lemaitre is because neither Kahn or Scott know enough about science and about the Atomic theory. These are examples of two reporters who are ill suited to report on Archimedes Plutonium and they end up with a piece of demonizing and perhaps even libelous journalism.
Also, the current Wiki page on Mr. Plutonium gives two quotes, which have been there for a decade and which are so ill suited for his page because of their irrelevance to his noteworthiness of the Atom Totality. Which again shows that the editors of Wiki are so foreign to doing a decent job of a entry. The Wiki page on Archimedes PLutonium has been a magnet and dartboard for jokesters who like to demonize a person.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-20 19:13:26
*Delete If he's so "widely noted" for this weird plutonium thing of his, why are there so many citation needed tags, warning templates, and only apparently 14 words in a book about usenet that concern him? If the person above who claims to be the subject of this article actually is the subject, maybe it's a better idea to wait until he actually publishes his thing, though even then, i'd think that'd just be one primary source.... Homestarmy 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greglocock, please delete all of this, because, I, Archimedes Plutonium wrote it all [edit] Biophysics of bipedalism
Notice in this picture frame above "A Man Running - Edward Muybridge" that there are two frames in which one leg is fully extended to a 180 degree position of upper leg and lower leg, simultaneous with the other leg almost contiguous of the upper leg with lower leg. This is the same physics features in overarm throwing snapping of the elbow (not overarm stiff elbow sling style) where the upper arm is virtually contiguous to the lower arm just before the thrust forward and snapping of the elbow joint. So just as in running, throwing achieves maximum thrust forward when the knee and elbow are midpoints in the configuration. Running is what physics would call the throwing of the body forward by two legs. Reference-- Book: "STONETHROWING THEORY, THE DOMINANT THEORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY", Archimedes Plutonium Internet book published 2002-2007 (assimilated in March 2007 in sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.med, sci.physics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-21 10:31:16
These are the facts. Wikipedia does an awful job on science entries. It does not have the editors capable of doing biographies of scientists. And the end result of any science entry in Wikipedia, because it is always open to editorial changes by nonscientists, that every science entry in Wikipedia is a frustration to scientists. Wikipedia on science is like a grocery store tabloid on science.
Britannica Encyclopedia compared to Wikipedia on science subjects A Wikipedia entry on science whether a person or a concept or theory is choppy because few entries are written by one person, who can make it all flow together. This is the frustrating problem I have had with my page on Archimedes Plutonium. That I need to show the flow of logic from Democritus to Lemaitre to Sagan to AP. Yet when hundreds of editors put their little tid bit to compose a page, you end up with nothing but choppy unconnected pieces of tidbits. So when you read Britannica on some science issue, it is integrated and a flow of logic. When you read Wiki on science it is logically bereft and wildly incongruent in thought or sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-21 09:53:37
Wikipedia ARTICLES OF PERMANENT BARRING The way I envision this is the strongest form of deletion of Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is so poor in science entries and scientist biographies. That Wikipedia have a Articles of Permanent Barring, where any person who has a Wikipedia entry can sign the list of Barrement and Wikipedia must immediately remove that entry and is not allowed to name that person in any of their entries. So that I could end my Wiki entry today and not even have to vote on it. And further by placing my name in their Barrement section of Wikipedia, Wiki can never use my name in any of their entries. And this Barrement section allows any scientist in the world today to place their name to that section and for which Wikipedia can never mention that person. What this does is fix all those mocking jokers pretending to be editors of a encyclopedia.
comment to the earlier Google book reference by Eric Francis This is why I say to be objective about a Archimedes Plutonium entry would be a short and simple entry that deals with his birth, his education and then the rest about his Atom Totality theory which makes him notable. During the 1990s when Mr. Plutonium was posting his theory to the Internet there arose such a gang of hatemongers including Eric Francis who then wrongfully included Mr. Plutonium into his murder book. So then, if Wikipedia references Francis, well, that is a tainted a and libelous reference. I am not saying that it is easy to write a objective entry for Mr. Plutonium, given that the world is filled with hatemongers who have referenced Mr. Plutonium. So that is why I keep saying that a Wikipedia page on Mr. Plutonium has to be bare facts and Atom Totality and nothing else.
the libelous Eric Francis reference Newsgroups: sci.physics, soc.history, misc.legal From: "a_plutonium" <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> Date: 21 Mar 2007 10:53:01 -0700 Local: Wed, Mar 21 2007 11:53 am Subject: Does libel have statue of limitations? Re: the Eric Francis "Dartmouth Murders" libeling the innocent Archimedes Plutonium
--- quoting Google books --- The Dartmouth Murders By Eric Francis Summary Preview this book Preview this book By Eric Francis Published 2002 St. Martin's Press True Crime / Espionage 244 pages ISBN 0312982313
ERIC FRANCIS is a freelance reporter and photojournalist whose work has appeared in dozens of newspapers and magazines in over 30 countries. A staff correspondent for People Magazine, Francis has also covered several notable murder cases for The New York Times, the Boston Globe, and Time Magazine. He lives on the Vermont-New Hampshire border and was one of the first reporters on the scene of the Zantop double homicide in January, 2001.
--- end quoting Google books ---
I do not know if Eric Francis is the same as (oF60Hc4w1...@alcyone.darkside.com)
m...@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) who had stalked
Archimedes Plutonium for years with his spew of hatred and demonization.
Anyway, when people hate other people in the way that Eric Francis hates Archimedes Plutonium, then their little minds do a trick on them. That they look for moments of opportunity to tie and connect innocent people like AP with a tradegy. Where they mix innocent people up with a murder. So that innocent people like AP is forever tangled up with something he had absolutely nothing to do with.
Anyone who reads this message, how would they feel if a reporter hated you, and then as soon as that reporter gets involved with some murder, includes your name in a page of that murder in a book? I think most people would be very much angered by the action of Eric Francis.
Because when the Zantop murder occurred, Archimedes Plutonium had departed Dartmouth about 2years prior and was living calmly and peaceably in the Midwest some thousands of miles away from Dartmouth. Yet AP was called by the Hanover New Hampshire police.
I believe this is libel if ever I have seen libel. In that how in the world can a news reporter demonize me in a book about a tragic murder for which I was half the continent away and which I had nothing to do with.
Does anyone know the statue of limitations for libel? And if a lawyer is reading this and who knows something about me as per my love of doing science on the Internet and would like to help me to "get some justice put onto Eric Francis, please indicate in a followup post.
I am very busy with science and hate to have to leave it to correct what I call "people problems", but I feel that Eric Francis needs to be punished for how he has victimized an innocent person-- Archimedes Plutonium. Because if I do not seek justice on Francis, then like Kant's Categorical Imperative-- Francis will then victimize some other innocent after having gotten away with victimizing me.
Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
end Internet post about the libelous Eric Francis
Further question to Arthur Rubin. Sorry but this nickname stuff is still bothering me. I see it as a form of degradation that what some "other person" calls you ends up in your biography, especially when unfriendly. I am thinking, Arthur, that the policy of nickname is not a requirement but merely "optional". And further, that the nickname policy varies as per occupation of individual. So that if you are doing a sport figure or artist or comedian or politician that nickname is desirable as a option. But when doing scientists, the other extreme of where scientists are no-nonsense, and have no nickname applied. Also, Arthur, I have read the Wiki biography of at least 100 scientists and not once did I see a nickname attached. And on my page I refer to Richard Feynman, John Bell, Georges Lemaître, Carl Sagan, Wendy Freedman, Alan Sandage, William Tifft, Paul Dirac, to name just a few, and not a single one of them has a nickname in their biography. So I wonder if I am being singled out here. Can you please check to see of the nickname policy is optional or required and if the policy is different for different occupations. Because this is really strange to me that some enemy of me could make up any deprecatory nickname and it ends up on a encyclopedia biography of that person. I could almost bet that the policy is optional. Thanks for your time.
Statistical Count of the editors on this page who have called Archimedes Plutonium as AP Greglocock 2 times Loadmaster 3 times Mike Christie 6 times Arthur Rubin 1 times Keesiwonder 4 times Phiwum 4 times Greg Deeter 2 times
So, what I am going to do is edit the Wikipedia page and scratch out the deprecatory nickname and replace with a valid nickname and cite this Articles of Deletion with the proof that everyone who debates me, falls into the nickname of preference AP. Now AP is close to the "associated press" so I am going to also add A.P..
So can I please get some help from either Uncle G or Arthur Rubin to stop reverting this edit and to cite this actual Articles of Deletion where most of the editors themselves have nicknamed me withou me goading them or prompting them.
Can Uncle G list the relevant paragraphs of this statement "**It's Wikipedia house style to list alternative names in the first section, and it is Wikipedia policy to go with what the sources say" Because I do not see any scientist biographies with nicknames. So are you arbitrarily applying something to Archimedes Plutonium? Can you cite the paragraphs that state -- nicknames are required?
My sympathy with JWSchmidt's comment A Wikipedia biography of a person who is very much controversial because of his "theory the universe is an atom" not only attracts biased hate storm, but it attracts editors inside Wikipedia who cannot place themselves objectively in maintaining the entry. It is my opinion that biased people of AP such as Eric Francis, Erik Max Francis (whether one and the same as Eric Francis), Tim Skirvin, James Kibo Parry, Uncle Al, are probably established editors of Wikipedia and who have established opposition to AP. A clear example is the nickname issue. Where Wikipedia has not one single scientist entry of a "deprecatory nickname" but when it comes to AP's entry, each and every sentence is looked for the opportunity to mock Mr. Plutonium, and if justification for that mockery is asked for such as what is the nickname policy then a Wikipedia editor such as Uncle G calls it a "house policy". This is what Mr. Plutonium is frustrated about and why he was for deleting this entry, is because the editors of Wikipedia simple cannot give Mr. Plutonium a fair objective shake. There is only one editor that writes with his real name-- Arthur Rubin, and I looked up his Wikipedia entry and there was no nickname mockery. I looked up every scientist connected with the reference to Atom Totality and not a single scientist enty has a nickname. But when it comes to Mr. Plutonium's entry, whenever there is an opportunity to mock him, that opportunity is grabbed at and given justification that it is some "Wikipedia house policy".
The result was Delete without prejudice to recreation. A complicated case, with strong arguments on both sides. However, even those expressing a "keep" opinion largely agree that the current article (and by implication its history) is of questionable standing. While the subject may be notable, and there may be reliable sources with which to write an article, consensus seems to lean toward stating that the current/recent article isn't it. The subject's own expressed wishes also hold some weight here, even though we do not allow individuals to "veto" their articles. Any recreation should take great care to follow WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Shimeru 08:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Gordon James Klingenschmitt. I am the subject of a biography of a living person. I did not create this page, but improved on a stub originally created under Gordon_Klingenschmitt and changed the name to Gordon_James_Klingenschmitt (also Klingenschmitt). I now propose deleting all three pages, for several reasons.
1) Somebody stole my private information (including my personal VISA card number) and posted it on Wikipedia with the apparent intent to disparage me.
2) More than 5 regular editors of my page regularly disparage me with personal epiphets. (Just read the last 8 entries on the discussion page...honestly, I haven't been called "Slingensh**t" since 4th grade).
3) Whenever pro-Klingenschmitt editors post neutral sources (such as the Washington Times or Worldnet Daily, or original documents posted at persuade.tv), they are quickly deleted by those wishing to disparage me.
4) Even those 5 editors, all anti-Klingenschmitt writers, have agreed my article should be deleted.
While I originally hoped to spur a lively discussion, it's now apparent that I agree with them. The only person not in favor of deletion seems to be DGG, whose impartial edits vainly attempted to save this page. Yet his attempts to discipline the crowds have gone unheeded.
I respectfully request Wikipedia delete all references to Gordon James Klingenschmitt, and let us all return to peaceful co-existence as private citizens.
I may be reached personally at anytime: (Redacted). In Jesus name, Rev. Gordon James Klingenschmitt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klingeng (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced. Policy says articles must be attributed to published sources. If this can be attributed to published sources, why not add those citations before you vote, but after you review policy on acceptable sources? Lotusduck 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin:
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information is duplicated effectively from Timeline of the National Hockey League, but the latter is in graphical form, which may be easier to understand. kelvSYC 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress. According to IMDb, appeared in a grand total of 7 productions (5 television shows and 2 television movies) over a 20-year timespan. Speedy-delete was contested on grounds that some of these were "popular national TV shows", however that argument seems weak given that she appeared on Coronation Street only 4 times in 3 seasons. No information in the article other than her acting credits. No reliable sources cited, so fails the multiple independent coverages required by WP:BIO. Valrith 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a balladeer has won the Silver Harp award 2006. The Silver Harp is a prestigious award given by Buma Cultuur to promising creative artists who have made an important contribution to the Dutch Music industry in the past year. Buma Cultuur is a foundation dedicated to the promotion and support of Dutch Music. Supported by the Dutch author rights organisation Buma/Stemra, Buma Cultuur initiates and carries out a number of projects in the Netherlands and abroad. The award will be presented to the band on February 5th.
[44] --Theunicyclegirl 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestling promotion, fails WP:CORP and WP:A One Night In Hackney303 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. - Mailer Diablo 08:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a sad attempt at the creation of an article that already exists, Bass.EXE. Please delete. --LordHuffNPuff 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by ChrisGriswold[45]. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article meets no notability criteria and cites no sources HokieRNB 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was going to tag this for speedy deletion but a proper AfD debate might avoid ill feelings. In any case, there is a complete absence of reliable third-party sources for the material contained in this article and therefore no chance to really create an article about this pin-trading club that meets our standards. Pascal.Tesson 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is non-notable per WP:BIO. Note that my primary reason for bring this here is that the article was just deleted through prod, and the article's author has exercised his right to challenge that deletion by re-creating the article. So, with that background in mind, it should definitely be discussed here. Mwelch 20:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Hathorn 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A POV fork of Pantyhose, full of coercive statements and OR. As the author admits on the talk page, "Why I created this article is the point that most men who wear pantyhose are not any more 'fetishists' or 'crossdressers', AND that pantyhose for men is an individual type of pantyhose just like stockings or leggings that may be separated from pantyhose." Wikipedia is not a soapbox; the gender connotations of clothing are already widely discussed in other articles. I tried smerging it back into Pantyhose, but the author reverted without explanation. — Krimpet (talk/review) 20:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So here comes Socrates' Defense.
First of all I object the way Krimpet nominated the article for deletion: he/she merged it without placing a merge tag before or making any suggestions to improve the article including placing other usual tags like NPOV into; and when I objected he/she simply put the AfD tag into. This is an article that was created more than six months ago and has been worked on a lot - it deserves a merge tag followed by a discussion at least. This is not WP:CIVIL from someone who aspires to become an administrator.
Second I object for the lack and/or poor quality of clarification of the merge act and the deletion nomination as follows:
In the discussion page Krimpet states the following reasons for merge/deletion:
Here in the deletion discussion page Krimpet states the following:
Again, I am sure it's not a perfect article and would happy to go on with it.
Harisnya 22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod; seems like an obvious hoax to me. Veinor (talk to me) 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promo page of zero worth.
A great deal of artists have been trying to push forward the Hardcore Breaks scene, and it is growing steadily day-by-day because of it. A lot of people ask what exactly the genre is, and this wiki is probably the best way to explain that by placing all available information about it in a centralized place. It is a bona fide genre of music, and I believe it deserves a wiki page just as much as any other genre. If you decide to delete it, then you must delete all other genres of music from this site.
The result was keep. Picaroon 20:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability, and subject is not notable anyway. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Picaroon 20:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are no sources and a very similar article, Nintendo NSider forums was deleted Knowitall 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable person, lacks independent sources establishing notability. 13 Google hits[51], only go to show that he is a student who manages a student radio station. Fram 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Wizardman 14:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no independent source and fails to source its statements. and per Jimbo no text is better than having unsourced. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy deletion (db-bio). I concur, it is db-bio. 84 Google hits for this young designer from Israel, who apparently thinks she was in the same league as e.g. Alvar Aalto (see the talk page). WP is not a business directory. Delete as db-bio and self-promotion. (See also Iris Design Studio.) Lupo 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Iris Kadouri. Plain advertisement. Wikiedia is not a business directory. Delete, including all the images the creator uploaded. Lupo 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:N. Article text does assert that he was the first American to win the "World Shooto Title" in Japan, so it passes CSD:A7. However, the results English Google returns for "'World Shooto Title' +Japan +Paulson" (all five of them) seem to be rather shaky attributions. Action Jackson IV 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game clan Mhking 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG I put work into this just for it to be delted its a dictionary of our clan. Perhaps you dont understand cause you havent been in one (Maybe). But when a persons work is delted i think i would feel sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyzersawsay (talk • contribs)
The result was No consensus. The views expressed are about evenly split. Policy arguments and considerations have been carefully considered but, in this instance, do not appear to mandate a particular result. Newyorkbrad 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially a list of indiscriminate information and appears to be based on original research. Inclusion of the word "Captain" in a characters name is not a definining or unifying element. J Greb 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list is no less valid than any other in the same field; it expands upon the work I completed in the Captain entry, and is presented as this list so as not impinge upon the general them of the rest of the work. The field of Superhero has several lists of it's own, and if anything, it should be added tothem rather than deleted. The very size of the document indicates it is a point of interest to Superhero watchers; to wit, the very fact that so many characters use the title of Captain makes it a valid point of study, and probably for the reasons indicated on the 'Further Information' entry on Captain. If this list is to be deleted, then a similar "Sledgehammer" application needs to be applied upon the other lists upon which it was based. List of Fictional Captains has no more or less right to exist than this original work. The information is valid and relevant to the associated fields. If it is simply my authorship which is the problem (demonstrated elsewhere0, then I am happy for somebody else to take the credit, but deletion of such valid reference is tantamount to power exercised for it's own sake.
STEALTH RANGER 10:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CREATOR I made this list, very recently, and is a work in progress. If I understand the reference to meat puppetry correctly, you are in error. I have created the list rather than add it to my extension to Captain, else it become unweildly and to diverse. I have solicited nobody to assist in this, and had hoped to complete the work without interference. This has not been the case. The stsement that I have not bothered to check information is insulting and must be considered personal. perhaps I tread on toes (again) by daring to add to peoples pet pages, and therefore deletion is the usual punishment, perhaps. What i hav edone is to bring the plight of this creation to those whom I thought might have a vested interest in seeing it's continuation; Sadly, this does not seem the case, and perhaps I have alerted the wrong peope to it's existance. Apologies to all. My earlier statement still stands. This page is a valid reference tool and one suitable for research purposes. It is an original work and worthy of survival on its own merit. It does not deserve deletion simply because a handful do not find an immediate use for it.
STEALTH RANGER 15:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as non-notable and lacking citations since Dec 2006 - no response. greenrd 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -- Bubba hotep 09:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found this in the WP:WIKIFY, not quite sure on notability so I'll let the community decide on this one. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Not enough good sources to support an article; Delete.. JWSchmidt 02:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potential WP:BLP violations, all the information is unreferenced Alex Bakharev 23:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge Alex Bakharev 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is just a dictionary definition, and I have never heard of it before. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]