< March 2 March 4 >
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 already deleted by NawlinWiki on 6 March 2007 —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not exist because a better one is already in place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft_%28film%29

The warcraft lore described in this article is not very well written, was incorrect in places, and is well documented on other parts of wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft_Universe

We do not know anything about the film yet and this article is speculation on the film storyline and basically describes the world of warcraft game. This should be deleted due to the fact theres a lot of speculation and none of it has to do with the topic of the movie. 151.196.38.97 22:41, 3 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. Mhiji 23:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Nominating the article Jon_Walton to be deleted.[reply]

Inappropriate + useless content

Beelake 14:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to The Sims. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:13Z

List of famous people in The Sims series[edit]

List of famous people in The Sims series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't really see any value in this list that say a category wouldn't on these individuals pages. Please read WP:ILIKEIT before making comments on this. The way EA is cross-marketing this product to try and get as many celebrities as possible involved in it it could very easily become massive and unmanageable if it was to be completed.Crossmr 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a look, everything except the last item "Tivium" is on their respective pages. The console games only get a short couple of paragraphs in the main TS2 article, so I don't know if that should be in there or not.--Crossmr 04:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To date that has been pretty straight forward. Celebrities that are in have appeared as sims, musicians have re-recorded songs of theirs for the game. The explanation has already been made on all the appropriate articles anyway, so in this case its really a duplication of material except in the one case I noted above. The console piece is small and I'm not sure if Trivium re-recording a song for the game is notable in that context.--Crossmr 17:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:23Z

August Donnelly[edit]

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

appears to be a non-notable biography. Speedy deletion tag was removed twice. My vote is a very weak delete. Mostly listing because of the repeatedly removed tag, with no attempt to add any references or content that would prove notability. Improbcat 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has guidelines for inclusion of biographies or musicians, they can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (music). Please read those, and make changes to the article and/or provide sources here that reflect how August Donnelly meets those requirements.
In addition, did you have permission from the author of the article you copied to post it in wikipedia? Because if you did not, there are possible copyright violations which would require removing the article. Improbcat 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved comment below from top of page to correct location)Improbcat 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless clearly refed by reliable sources. He may be a splendid fellow, but he can't have an article in Wikipedia without enough reliable sources being referenced. NBeale 23:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:24Z

Keith barker-main[edit]

Keith barker-main (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiography. No great asserion of notability. -- RHaworth 01:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deletion by admin CesarB as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 04:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Réveillon[edit]

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

Biography with no assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 01:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:24Z

Circus of the Seed[edit]

Circus of the Seed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Circus of the seed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:Circus of the seed.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Only one reliable source, no indication of notability per WP:MUSIC, and only 6 ghits, none of which provide any additional indication of notability. — Swpb talk contribs 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the first source is legit, so speedy is out. — Swpb talk contribs 03:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:15Z

Aminah Assilmi[edit]

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

After two years this article still fails WP:BLP policies. There are no secondary sources confirming notability except www.islamfortoday.com. Google only has 827 hits to her name [1]. This article seems to exist for only one reason, and that is to make the list of muslim converts longer. Sefringle 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It had over two years to prove notability, and it still hasn't passed notability requirements.--Sefringle 05:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 00:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Višnjica[edit]

The subject of the article does meet the guidelines for notability per WP:LOCAL Nv8200p talk 02:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I have nominated American, London and Mexican etc. neighborhoods in the past. This is a weak argument to keep a non-notable subject. -Nv8200p talk 14:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A mention in a book or two does not make something notable since we have no idea of the extent or the writing about this subject in the book. This article needs to assert that notability, which it does not. I agree with TBCΦtalk? however, that the article could be merged with Belgrade. -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a town. It is now an "urban neighborhood of Belgrade." -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to where it is written that "a major neighborhood of a world city is notable". WP:LOCAL tends to disagree. Thanks -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the non-notable neighborhoods and suburbs should be deleted. They can be stubs, but the stub needs to assert notability, which this article does not. Sometimes opinions are all we have to base a judgement on. This discussion itself is just a listing of opinions and a decision will be made on it. -Nv8200p talk 16:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How someone not living in a city can know what's notable and non-notable in it. Notable, cited, indexed, credited...if someone spends the rest of his life reading only things he already knows it will be good to memorize them but how will he ever learn anything new? Nobody needs to log on to Wikipedia to check if the Earth is round PajaBG 16:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Flat Earth Society may disagree with you on checking if the Earth is round, but that is their opinion -70.113.57.85 17:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right...my deepest appologies :o) PajaBG 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd imagine that if I could speak Serbian I would have no problems finding materials. Incidentally, the article on sr.wikipedia is even more stubbish than ours, and they don't seem to have a problem with it. It's not hard finding articles on neighbourhoods and suburbs of Australian/British/American cities that are far worse than this one (and utterly *un*referenced, too). Orderinchaos78 02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to cities, towns and neighborhoods, reliable street maps are excellent sources of their existance, size, location, etc.. --Oakshade 04:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the same reasoning, street maps would be just as excellent sources for individual streets. Somehow I doubt you claim that. To cite WP:N: Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Unless some non-trivial source is found (whether in Serbian or English is secondary), we have to consider this neighbourhood non-notable. Huon 09:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, actually. I'm not saying just becuase something is on a map it's automatically notable. A reliable map will confirm, say, a side street being "just a side-street" as well as a signifficant area being so. --Oakshade 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is referenced in the Mala Prosvetina Enciklopedija, Third edition (1985), Volume I, ISBN 86-07-00001-2, No 1 Serbian general encyclopaedia and in Enciklopedijski geografski leksikon Jugoslavije, by Svjetlost-Sarajevo, ISBN 86-01-02651-6 References are added to the page. Street maps are excellent for the detailed view and also would be great sources for the notable streets, why not? In addition, googling for Visnjica Belgrade gives 17,800 and for Visnjica Beograd 28,000 hits. Dorian Hawkmoon has 11,300 :o) (btw, the books are great). PajaBG 10:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. wL<speak·check> 07:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future themes[edit]

Back to the Future themes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - An enormous mess of a trivia article, filled with unsourced original research in declaring as fact that such things as Marty's saying "Mom, is that you?" in each of the films was a deliberate "running gag" or "theme" and that this sort of thing contributed to the popularity of the film series. Otto4711 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some improvements to the first section of the article based on the comments above but it still needs work, some points could probably be removed, and if anyone has a better idea for the title, it would be much appreciated. I don't think this information should be put back into the Back to the Future trilogy page, as it would become too long. Also it is difficult to cite sources, when you are referring to scenes in a movie, the source is the films themselves. Dannyboy3 11:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Think of sources this way: if a reputable publication hasn't explored a theme of the film, at least briefly, it probably isn't notable enough to be mentioned in a Wikipeida article. If you want an example of a good "Themes" section, check out Blade Runner. It's impeccably sourced and well written, and explores the themes rather than lists them. I suspect a well-sourced article would be significantly shorter than this one, and could probably be merged back into the main article.--Djrobgordon 17:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my user page and please don't mention it again. - Arch NME 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This band seems to be on the line between notable and not notable, with some saying it qualifies under WP:BAND, while others saying it fails WP:MUSIC. If this band doesn't improve, maybe another AFD might change matters. wL<speak·check> 07:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grown At Home[edit]

Grown At Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

reason non notable band article does not state why they are imptent enough to be on here Oo7565 03:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - it looks like they totally fail WP:MUSIC. The BBC link is only one non-trivial source; the policy requires several. The articles should be deleted if more sources can't be produced. --Haemo 04:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious joke nomination; non-admin closing using WP:SNOW.--TBCΦtalk? 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harper[edit]

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

Totally fails WP:Notable. Little known leader outside Canada. Does not require article.

User:Superkiooo 3:36 UTC AM

This user also has a history of sprurious nominations of Canadian political figures. I'd urge admin action to address this disruptive behavior. --Haemo 04:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:16Z

Luther Buchele Cooperative House[edit]

Luther Buchele Cooperative House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Despite being a "cooperative house" this reads like it was written as a frat house prank. I acknowledge this might be salvageable as a basic article by removing everything beyond the first three paragraphs. Yet I'm putting it up for deletion because I waver on the importance of the location itself. But no references at all in the article. Given the tone and content, this suggests it's written by members of the house. Officially, I'm pegging it with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:ORG. PigmanTalk to me 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:17Z

Somewhere off Jazz Street[edit]

Somewhere off Jazz Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notable? Neutralitytalk 04:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:17Z

Crash Course in Science[edit]

Crash Course in Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable. Neutralitytalk 04:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the random uncited claims from it, just becuase... - Arch NME 13:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Geometry Template. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:30Z

Mathomat[edit]

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

Contested prod. No appearance of notability as a commerical product (are there multiple, independent published sources discussing it?). I think it warrants discussion no matter whether it is kept or deleted. CMummert · talk 04:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That comment says that a Mathomat can be used to draw some shapes, and says this in exactly two sentences. But it does not discuss the mathomat as a subject. What we need is an article somewhere that discusses the mathomat as a subject (for example, with the title "Educational benefits of Mathomats in elementary classrooms"). CMummert · talk 15:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, maybe I'm getting old, but I went to school in Brisbane, and I've never heard of this "Mathomat" gizmo before. To my mind, a non-notable commercial product. Lankiveil 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep, changing my vote, as obviously my school was unusual in not having these gizmos. Perhaps it's a private/government school thing. Lankiveil 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AFD is not a vote; if you give no new reason for keeping the article, the closing admin will ignore your "vote". Several people have claimed that this thing is notable; I hope that they will provide some sort of reference. When I went to school, we used Mead notebook paper, and while there is an article on MeadWestvaco there is no article on Mead paper. CMummert · talk 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, 'Mere numbers are an indication of consensus: in fact, evidence of uncomplicated agreement may represent the best evidence of consensus. Your "just a vote" shows that you concur with another editor's judgment.' THE KING 12:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of references is not an AFD criterion. Lack of notability is, however. CMummert · talk 13:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why merge to HSC? Mathomats are used by more than just HSC students. --Candy-Panda 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If thats the case then maybe we should go Geometry template and have a section on Mathomat (which would be this article basically) and a section on Mathaid? I have never heard of the latter and always used a Mathomat but it is probably different in different schools/states/etc DanielT5 08:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can I throw this for a French curve? There is a Category:Technical drawing, but dare I suggest a Template for mathematical and technical templates. - Fred 13:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Given that there are other popular brands of geometry templates in Australia, is Mathomat used as a generic term for these templates? Spacepotato 01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm from Western Australia and see Mathaids in use more frequently...they are called 'Mathaid.' I can't speak for how the word is used in the Eastern States. --Greatwalk 02:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment is by nominator. Discussion moved to talk. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:23Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:27Z

Biochain[edit]

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

Original Research Alex Bakharev 04:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:28Z

Yu gi oh Champions[edit]

Yu gi oh Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Champions 013.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Champions 008.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Champions 003.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Champions 0033.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Article solely on advertising, all created by one person who mentions himself in the article, contact info at bottom DiamondDragon contact 04:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:30Z

Container Man Project[edit]

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

This project does not appear noteworthy. A Google search yields only 8 hits. Furthermore, the article is copied verbatim from its website. Over half of the article are biographies of its two creators. Even if the artwork were somehow found to be notable, and even if there were a significant secondary source of about the sculpture, the article would have to be scrapped completely because of the copy vio, not to mention the style and content issues. Tbjablin 06:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:36Z

Johnny Mann (actor)[edit]

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

I think this is a hoax, but for once, it wasn't played on Wikipedia but rather the the source that was used in good faith by the article creator. Other than the obituary which is referenced and provides the material used for the article, I can't verify the claims, which if true should be easy to verify. I note that while IMDB has an entry for a Johnny Mann (I) and a Johnny Mann (III) there is no Johnny Mann (II) which leads me to suspect that they were hit by the hoax but later discovered it, deleting that entry. The only innocent explanation I can think of is that he was credited under a different screen name, but if that's the case, we really need that name for this article to be of any use. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hatten[edit]

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

Tagged for speedy deletion, but I don't think the article's subject is completely non-notable. Having said that I am unsure about the subject's long-term impact. Procedural nomination, no vote from me. – riana_dzasta 06:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:44Z

Bucklers mead[edit]

Bucklers mead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Bucklers mead community school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Clearly does not assert notability, and is defiantly not in the tone expected of an encyclopedia. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neuroimaging. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:46Z

Brain function map[edit]

Brain function map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This one is a bit interesting. On one hand it does not neatly fit into one of our speedy deletion categories, but on the other hand I have concerns over how it is written, and the possiblilty for this to become a WP:OR problem. In either case I just happened along this while clearing Category:Stubs. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was ((wi)). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:49Z

Single Supplement[edit]

Single Supplement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Single supplement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We are not a dictionary. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carabinieri 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dupee[edit]

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

This was marked for speedy deletion, but it is well-written and has plenty of assertion of notability. I think the real question is, are there reliable sources for this guy? There might be, there might not be. But I'd rather let the community decide what happens to this article. No opinion. Grandmasterka 07:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this IP address has now said "Include" three times. Pseudomonas 06:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie and the Kens[edit]

Barbie and the Kens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. which is the core notability requirement. I don't see any citation that the band had a hit on a national music chart. Article had previously been proposed for deletion in Aug 2006. I'm not sure if the undocumented claim that is in regular rotation on a retro internet-only radio station meets the requirement for notability but would be interested in what others have to say. Warfieldian 17:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Their song" the Just a Gigolo (song) of 1929? SmokeyJoe 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that WP:BAND is just a guideline, but the central notability requirement for this band has not been met. And reading the guidelines, the secondary qualifiers of being on a national music chart is only an indicator of the probable existence of "sufficient reliable information is available about a given group or individual musician." I don't see any reliable information in the article or available on the web that would lead me to think that this article would ever be anything more than a stub. Warfieldian 18:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scraps & Heart Attacks[edit]

Scraps & Heart Attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 12:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Dam Brewery[edit]

Dillon Dam Brewery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod of small-town brewery. No indication of notability per WP:CORP. --Elonka 06:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just because a page is part of a wikiproject doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted. In fact the article seems to have been all but forgotten by the community as for the better part of 2 years all it had said was: "Dillon Dam Brewery is a brewery and restaurant located in Dillon, Colorado. The brewery was founded in 1997 and is located near Keystone Resort. Customers of the brewery tend to be a mix of locals and tourists and the brewery is a common stop after a day on the ski slopes." It also included a link to their website and a list of their beers. With the new addition of the beer awards notability is trying to be established, but I question if this can ever become more than a stub, which coincidently the above proposal flatly says should not be done. Maybe a better place to cover this establishment, and other like it, would be in a Micro-breweries of Colorado page?? EnsRedShirt 15:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How depressing. I really did create it almost 2 years ago, and nothing of real value was added until this AfD came around. I guess my thought is that all breweries are notable, but I don't have a good reason for it. Not disagreeing with anything you wrote there. Wikibofh(talk) 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pitchfork Media reference is damned by the conflict of interest brought up by Nuttah68; without it, the entire article fails. Veinor (talk to me) 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bowerbirds (band)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC; no album yet, the record label doesn't seem notable, and there isn't external coverage. (Lots of Google hits but they're mostly about the actual bird. Crystallina 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total Control[edit]

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

Not sure whether this passes notability for products. Montchav 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Veinor (talk to me) 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. Jay Fisher[edit]

R._Jay_Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not Notable. --Hojimachongtalkcon 04:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Militaryphotos[edit]

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

A website of no objectively provable significance, subject of a lame edit war about the rules placed on its forums, entirely sourced fomr the site itself, sole external mention is a passing mention in a list of related subjects in an article on military subjects on the internet. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to University of the East. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:52Z

University of the East College of Computer Studies and System[edit]

University of the East College of Computer Studies and System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested with no reason given. This ia a spam article for a non notable university faculty. Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a substitute prospectus. Nuttah68 10:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:53Z

Brian Smith (photographer)[edit]

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

The article is an autobiography, and at least some claims are overstated. The author describes himself as having won the Pulitzer Prize, but this was in fact awarded jointly to staff of the Orange County Register. See also Gerald W. Smith. JQ 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hinterlands (short story). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:54Z

Toyvesky Anomaly Coordinates[edit]

Toyvesky Anomaly Coordinates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

does not merit its own article, all content is already on the stub-like Hinterlands (short story) page Skomorokh 11:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sport teams by championships[edit]

Sport teams by championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, no references or citations, unnecessary fluff Anthony Hit me up... 11:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:55Z

Carole Goble[edit]

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

No case made for notability Billlion 11:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting phenomenon--if an article on an academic does list all the papers then it gets condemned as puffery, if an academic is more modest, then it gets thought non-notable. DGG 23:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:55Z

Alan Rector[edit]

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

No notability is claimed in the article, although possibly he might meet WP:BIO criteria this is not claimed in this stub article Billlion 11:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Dave Douglas (drummer). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:57Z

Agnes (band)[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability. Auroranorth 12:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of Liverpool F.C.. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 14:01Z

Liverpool F.C.'s European Cup triumphs[edit]

Liverpool F.C.'s European Cup triumphs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only serves to duplicate information found on the Liverpool F.C., History of Liverpool F.C. and 2005 UEFA Champions League Final pages. Robotforaday 12:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 14:02Z

DoylesRoom[edit]

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

I don't think this website meets the criteria for notability and generally seems like just a subversive attempt at an advertisement Arch NME 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andrew Choi[edit]

The result was Speedily deleted. Nothing to see here, move along folks. Hesperian 12:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article should be deleted under WP:N. Auroranorth 12:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blood Stain Child. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 14:03Z

VIOLATOR[edit]

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

Is this drummer notable? WP:N Auroranorth 12:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of YWAM bases[edit]

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

list of external links -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 13:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 'keep' !voters didn't present really convincing arguments compared to the deleters. Veinor (talk to me) 03:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Profound Intent[edit]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram 13:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Mayo (news reporter)[edit]

Bob Mayo (news reporter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not pass notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia. Burghboy80 13:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yumi Shimura[edit]

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

WP:NOTE Snarfies 13:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Holt (second nomination)[edit]

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

Dalejenkins has deleted and redirected this article twice as non-notable; however, in its last nomination there was no consensus. I created this article, and last time it was I who nominated it for deletion. However, since then I have changed my mind and I believe that the article should be kept. I am only adding this article here because an anon editor tried to add it for deletion but did not do it properly, and also so that we can try to reach a consensus on whether the article should be kept, in light of Dalejenkins concerns. TomPhil 14:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obvious WP:NFT failure. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People-counts[edit]

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

Neologism Nv8200p talk 14:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted by Majorly. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:31Z

KEVIN ROLLE[edit]

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

Only ghits for Kevin D. Rolle is a comedy/comic strip writer; unverifiable, non-notable. --Walor 14:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipdia is not a platform for self-aggrandizing mystics. Bobanny 18:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Per above. Non-notable. Page is horribly made, would require overly substantial rewring even if it wer notable. Article title is even against wikipedia's naming conventions(ALL CAPS)--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find verifable sources for the kid going to college early, but the youth ambassador stuff can't be verified. I've asked for sources and prodded it once. Philippe Beaudette 21:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:31Z

Yuriy Leonovich[edit]

Yuriy Leonovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Casanova1.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

This is a user page that user switched to main encyclopedia - it's vain person who believes he's important, but is not notable to the world in general. The key, though, is that if he truly is important enough to have an article in the encyclopedia, he needs to wait and let someone else write it, rather than writing about himself. As a result of writing his own autobiographical entry, this page is full of unverifiable information. 129humility 15:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Leonovich is not world famous does not make him any less noted. He has had works performed in Carnegie hall, and completed Tchaikovsky's Cello Concerto. 129humility needs to stop his or her personal quest to delete Mr. Leonovich's biography on Wikipedia. Instead of trying to improve Wikipedia by looking real problems, he or she is making persistant hits on a solitary individual that he or she might or might not know personally. I am well aware of Wikipedia rules of vanity and promotion. I am here to state the facts. As you can see, there is a legitimate reference on the Yuriy Leonovich page: www.tchaikovsky-research.org. This page is mainained by Brett Langston and Alexander Poznansky, authors of the Tchaikovsky Handbook, and other well known biographies on Tchaikovsky's life. The authors are used as references on different pages on Wikipedia. I am not here to explain my means of obtaining information. However, I'd like to see the end of attacks on this article.

Sergei Lysenko 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


User:Maestroukr Sergei Lysenko 17:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kontinent.org/article_rus_44ef8d4888e0a.html . (this article is in Russian, from a Russian-American paper: Kontinent). However, the article is no less valuable in a differnt language. http://www.tchaikovsky-research.org/en/Works/th249.html is by a noted Tchaikovsky biographer Brett Langston, who gives credit to Mr. Leonovich for completing Tchaikovsky's unfinished concerto.

Sergei Lysenko 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are not Yuriy Leonovich, then by an amazing coincidence, your user name is the same as his email address. I understand your concern that a self-authored article runs a bigger chance of being deleted, but you should be honest with the process - it makes it easier for us to assume good faith. As to the article, unfortunately, I can't read the first source, but I hope that the closing admin makes sure that somebody does before this AfD closes. The second source is a trivial mention, but it links to this page [5], which, while written by Leonvich himself, seems to be a scholarly work on his completion of the concerto. It seems to me that it would confer notability, if completing the concerto was a notable or unique occurrence in the music field (much like a mathematician solving or proving a famous theorem or equation). Unfortunately, most of us lack the frame of reference for determining if this is a notable act, so sources would be needed to support the following questions: Was the concerto "famous" for being unfinished? Are there any other sources on the concerto and Leonvich's modifications? Has the completed concerto been played anywhere? These are the questions that need to be answered to avoid deletion. Officially, put me down as a Weak Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk)

Sergei Lysenko 13:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Aryan Theory[edit]

Indigenous Aryan Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I request opinions on this article, which since its creation has been a magnet for edit-warring (with WP:3RR and other problems) [6] and of a lot of uncivility and disputes on the talkpage.

About one half to two thirds of this article can already be found in the Out of India Theory and in the Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) articles. The remaining part of the article could be safely merged as a section into the OIT, AIT and Hindu nationalism articles. Most of it can easily find place in OIT, and the rest in the other two articles.

Here we have an article that claims to be about the "ideological position" that may manifest itself as "Out of India Theory", and that seems to have been created to paint views such as the "criticism of Aryan migration theories" as some sort of Hindu nazism. The article has also neutrality issues.

It does not need a separate article. Wikipedia has articles on theories like Armenian hypothesis, Paleolithic Continuity Theory and many other theories, but Wikipedia has not articles only on the psychological motives or ""ideological position" for these theories. Such claims belong in the article of the theory, not in a separate article.

I suggest that this article be merged as a section into the mentioned articles, or that at least a suitable title for this article is found. Such a title could be Ideological positions in the Indo-Aryan migration debate or maybe Out of India Theory (Ideological positions). --RF 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC) RF 01:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not exactly, This guy appears to claim to have invented the term in a 1997 Columbia dissertation (now he is at Harvard), and presumably uses it in his book published by Oxford University Press Johnbod 18:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I have read that book. In my opinion, Bryant's "Indigenous Aryan" is just another name for Out of India Theory or Indian Urheimat Theory, and we have an article for that. The creator of the article may disagree with my opinion here. --RF 19:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

it is not, as you can read up in the article. "OIT" is shoddy scholarship, while "Indigenous Aryans" is nationalist propaganda. The two overlap, of course. Bakaman's google search is spurious of course (surprise, surprise), since it includes the "theory" part which we want to get rid of by a ((move)) anyway. (as you can extrapolate from Bakaman's 'dabcruft' neologism, this isn't even about any topical issue for him anymore, he just follows me around wikipedia and tries to disrupt things in various small ways). "Indigenous Aryan position" is just a term for what proponents (or should we say, disseminators) prefer to call things like "exciting new emerging evidence found by eminent professors" (and permutations, ad nauseam), which is hardly preferable as an article title. dab (𒁳) 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow? The pages have been on my watchlist since time immemorial, I dont need to follow you around to see what goes on on WP:DSI, or any of the hundreds of pages on my watchlist.Bakaman 17:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not saying the term doesn't exist, merely that it doesn't warrant its own article. Addhoc 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry - moved comment up - was intended to refer to Bakasupram's one Johnbod 18:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a proposal... instead of screaming at me find a new title, would be a meaningful use of your time AlfPhotoman 20:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exact quote, in case you were interested: "The theory of the indigenous origin of the Aryans has been advocated by a number of scholars." A footnote says: "This Appendix is based on a long note on the subject prepared by Prof. S. Srikanta Sastri and most of the arguments are advanced by Mr. K.M. Munshi in Glory that was Gurjaradeśa, I, Section II". That's 1955, if you please. rudra 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "meta" issue here, as I'm sure you realize, and as I'm equally sure no one is prepared to admit, is that isolating kookery is precisely what is not wanted by those pushing for deletion. Because it would lead to removal of material from articles on subjects of legitimate scholarly concern, and thus lose "air time" for the fringecruft that seeks to gain respectability by association. The IAM and OIT articles are disasters already - reducing them should be the order of the day. rudra 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could I suggest you make some effort to comply with the civility policy? Addhoc 17:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue against widening the scope, as Hindutva revisionism involves more than just fulminating against 19th century straw men. rudra 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Hindutva revisionism"? You mean the article title should not only be confusing and "OR", it should also be pov? What else do you want to include into this "wider scope"? The Holocaust revisionism in India is currently not carried out by the Hindutva folk. So what kind of other "Hindutva revisionism" are you talking about?
The AIT article should be split, and be merged to IAT and other articles? AIT is the most common name for that article, while IAT is not common at all. And by policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions the most commonly used name in English should be used. You said on the IAT talkpage "A decent cleanout of offtopic observations on Nazis, imperialism and 19th century Romanticism just used to add spin ("Role in Imperialism and Nazism") would reduce it to about half its present size; the "Political and religious issues" could be merged here, while "Early history of the theory" could be summarized in the IAM article." What is meant by a decent cleanout? --Rayfield 20:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dab, you said that this article was the equivalet of Hindutva and historical revisionism. I have no problems with your views being included on the article saying that "The theory is associated by some as Hindutva propaganda". But the fact that you believe this article is worthy of moving to Hindutva and historical revisionism means that it is just a POV-fork of Out of India theory where you can show everyone who Hindutvavaadis are evil historical revisionists while the 19th Western people that made the idea of a migration into India are learned and had no political motivations. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • if you would please read the article, you will note that this is not the case. "out of India" can be proposed without "indigenous Aryans" ideology (Schlegel; Elst at least claims to not follow this ideology. Funny tough he should write a dissertation on Hindutva (sympathetic), and then, for completely unrelated reasons, come up with a "out of India" suggestion), and "indigenous Aryans" can be proposed without any sort of "out of India" concepts (such as, by ideologues who ignore linguistics or reject Indo-European as a colonialist conspiracy). Neither article is a true sub-topic of the other. dab (𒁳) 14:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case can you demonstrate couple of things 1) How is this article different from AIT and why should it not be included as subsection there. AIT is better referenced article, more encyclopedic article for same content. 2) Why does the article not say upfront that this is about sentimennt that rejects linguistic relations and the only theory this can be compatible with is "Out of India". Bryant made this clear statment (2001 page 6), that I have explained to you number of times with exact words from Bryant. I also explained to you yesterday why joining 2 words and creating argument is OR, we need peer reviewed material [[10]]. Sbhushan 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term is an inherent neologism, not being cited in any of the works explicitly.Bakaman 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Turn the pages of elementry school pages of any Indian school syllabus you will learn the truth, I believe those who are proposing Afd too know the truth. "If history was easy to change, Man would not have been using internet".Those who made efforts to change history are themself wiped off from history.
  • wow, Indian elementary school syllabus is now "Truth"? Would that be before or after the 1998-2004 indoctrination stunt by the BJP government? I suppose we should turn to Turkish elementary school syllabus to establish the Truth of Pan-Turkism, then? And, it would follow, to pre-2005 Dover Area School District curriculum to learn the Truth on Creation science? I think you'll need to WP:FORK (conservapedia.com? -- hindutvapedia.com!) if that's what you want. dab (𒁳) 13:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to user Rayfield, or RF as the User signs. I correct my above statement-RF had "particpated" in a rfc and taken a stance opposed to dab.- Haphar 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)- Also in light with the request for deletion, it is misplaced as in the same request a suggestion to "merge" is also made, merge has a seperate template than afd, and if merge was the objective than the appropriate tags and discussion should have been placed and made. If the content can be added to the other article, then deletion / redirection suggestions can be looked at, but I think that should precede a request for deletion.Haphar 15:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify Rayfield (RF) has neither "certified" or "endorsed" the RfC. On talk page of RfC he has provided some advice (which any fair person would have difficulty disagreeing with) to Dab [[12]]. It would definately make it easy to work with Dab if he followed WP:CIVIL policy. I made effort over 4 months to resolve this, how long can I keep clapping with one hand. I am still having difficulty understanding how enforcing WP:ATT on all editors evenly is not the best solution to this controversial problem. Don't allow anyone's POV.Sbhushan 15:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by RHaworth. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historymon[edit]

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

Unclear or insufficient evidence of notability. Contested prod. Strangerer (Talk) 17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested WP:PROD, sending here for discussion. Original PROD rationale is here. Procedural nom, no opinion. Chick Bowen 17:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Miah[edit]

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

Autobiographical article with a big conflict of interest problem. Sources are primarily by the subject/primary editor of the article. Prod was contested (by the subject of the article}. RJASE1 Talk 18:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Veinor (talk to me) 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of calculators[edit]

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

Although I confess to accessing this page while looking for a list of casio calculators, WP:NOT a collection of links, or a directory. The page is almost useless, at least 95% of the links are redlinks, and few of the articles would ever contain any useful information without becoming instruction manuals, which WP:NOT. Most of the lists are in neither numerical or chronological order, and there is no consistency of style or content. It's unknown and difficult to determine whether the lists are current or comprehensive, as there are no references or cited sources. All in all, this list needs an enormous amount of work itself, and the effort needed to establish the hundreds of articles it links to is simply titanic. Without all those redlinks linking to functional articles, the list is useless, and even if the faries were to accomplish that, and remain within the confines of WP:NOT, what would we be have then? A glorified category which can't update itself. Useless. Happy-melon 18:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:29Z

Computer Concepts (USA)[edit]

Computer Concepts (USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:ComputerConceptsLogo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Seems relatively non-notable (WP:N), and self-promotional (WP:Vanity). Rebroad 18:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: fails WP:MUSIC, non notable. Also a copyvio of the band's homepage, so speedy delete as well. Fram 13:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ligion[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not meet any of the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is the band has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. Who is Maple Jam Records? -Nv8200p talk 01:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:32Z

Carlos Rivero[edit]

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

Not notable

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

The result was Deleted. No assertion of notability, self-referential tone, conflict of interest (from both editors), borderline spam - overall, it has to go. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skylab exhibition[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion... whatever this is, it needs to cite some published sources and explain its importance or it should be deleted. Article may be a conflict of interest autobiography. --W.marsh 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: unsourced, unverifiable. Fram 13:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beep talking[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable phenomenon, consisting entirely of WP:OR, with serious WP:V issues. I've found nothing with a quick perusal on google: [13] and [14] Part Deux 19:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the info, Nardman. Is there any chance you could come up with a source for that? Even print sources would be better than nothing. Part Deux 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAWs.ws[edit]

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

Non-notable forum and fansite. Was kept at the previous AfD without many !voters, but I don't feel it meets notability guidelines. The mention in Gamesmaster magazine is trivial coverage per WP:WEB, and states "Our favourite is www.caws.ws, which has CAWs so realistic they look like they've been photographed - and, um, some slightly less realistic ones. Check these out..." with a few pictures of images. The article fails WP:ATT as the entire article is written from the primary source, there is no non-trivial coverage in secondary sources from which an encyclopedic article can be created. One Night In Hackney303 19:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not an argument for inclusion under WP:WEB. The number of user and messages posted does not apply for notability under WP:WEB. Unless you can find independent, reliable sources that assert and support notability this article should be deleted. --Haemo 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:27Z

Doc Marten Skins[edit]

Doc Marten Skins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert that the subject meets any criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Deleted, copyvio. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific immortology[edit]

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

Neologism and original research.  --LambiamTalk 19:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:27Z

Mohammad Yaghoobi[edit]

Mohammad Yaghoobi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Yaghoobi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

There is no assertion of notability for the subject that meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:23Z

Chemfluence[edit]

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

Contested prod. Upcoming festival with no real assertion of notability, no independent sources. 31 unique Ghits, and couldn't find any reliable sources among them. One Night In Hackney303 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:34Z

Michael Chaney (Australian businessman)[edit]

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

Reads like a resume, no sources cited, deleted once as CSD A7. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovio[edit]

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

A constructed language. No evidence of notability, seems to be part of a walled garden of articles relating to Mark Hucko, some of which are already deleted, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-level cosmology. Article is completely unsourced, presumably original research. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first link is short overview of grammar, the second link is a very NN website. Pavel Vozenilek 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability does not require that the sources themselves be notable, only that they be reliable. -- Black Falcon 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:N requires the sources be non-trivial. I'd argue the omniglot article is trivial, as it's nothing but a short overview, and is nothing but an internet website. A non-trivial source, by contrast, would be a mention in a published book or magazine. I haven't found any in a google books search. Also, "non-trivial" would mean saying more than just "here is a constructed language we found on the internet." In this case, though, if there is something like a medium (newspaper, even bulletin board system) where writers seriously USE Slovio, I can see that making this article notable. Basically, let's try to prove that someone other than Mark Hucko finds this language useful. Davidicke 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will readily admit that the article has/had notability concerns, but disagree with some of your statements above. Like you, I too prefer physically-published or publishable materials (books, journals, news) over websites. But, an internet website, as long as it reliable, is still a source. I believe the overview in the Omniglot page satisfies "non-triviality" because Slovio is the page's primary (nay, sole) focus. A trivial overview would be limited to: "Slovio is a constructed language invented by Mark Hucko.". It may be appropriate to merge this article into Mark Hucko, or vice versa, but I view that to be an editorial issue, which I would rather leave to those articles' talk pages and their editors (who are probably more specialised in matters related to constructed languages and their inventors). -- Black Falcon 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MADEUP. And from WP:N, "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Thus, I would like to see more than an Omniglot overview. But I agree with you that merge into Mark Hucko might work, if Mark Hucko is notable himself at all. Davidicke 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, Omniglot also lists many alphabets for languages that were created by visitors to this site (an aspect of Omniglot, that I absolutely dislike) and still wouldn't qualify for Wikipedia; but Slovio does not belong to them, of course. — N-true 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this article, reconsider if a full article is written. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:22Z

The Highway Beautiful[edit]

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

Band with only one album and very few informations about it. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Beal (composer)[edit]

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

Tihs article was deleted once as an autobiography, created by User:Johnbeal. It was re-created by a new user, User:Bsteph1, who started editing after Johnbeal stopped. I believe they are one and the same. The article is pretty much completely unsourced. IMDB [22] shows Beal to be a jobbing composer of music for minor productions - "specializing in composition for theatrical marketing", i.e. writing advertising soundtracks. Check also the links to reeltime music, this person;s company. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant hoax = vandalism ~ trialsanderrors 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neddia[edit]

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

Supposedly a hurricane that hit Tahiti aka Otaheite. No references: only reference is to page that doesn't exist. No google hits: searched for Neddia & hurricane. Possible WP:HOAX. Prod removed by only author. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zenzizenzizenzic[edit]

Delete - dictionary definition. I hear tell of "transwiki" to Wictionary but I don't knwo how that works, but if this is not there already it probably should be. Otto4711 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notable actually has a meaning here. Can you show that this has been the subject of in-depth reliable secondary sources? Otto4711 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Otto, I know all about WP:NOTE - that's why I said "notable". Etymological study in Michael Quinion's World Wide Words here. Published references in Much Ado About English by Richard Watson Todd ISBN 978-1857883725 and Measure for Measure: The Story of Imperial, Metric, and Other Units by Alexius J. Hebra ISBN 978-0801870729. Gandalf61 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not having copies of the latter two references, I can only guess based on the titles but I have certain reservations that Zenzizenzizenzic was their sole subject or even a major subject. Otto4711 23:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what I claimed. Zenzizenzizenzic is mentioned in both books in the context of Robert Recorde and his place in the history of mathematics and development of modern mathematical terminology and notation. So we have:
  1. Primary source.
  2. Secondary in-depth source (the Michael Quinion reference).
  3. Mentions in other multiple independent published secondary sources.
which, taken all together, support the argument that zenzizenzizenzic has a sufficently notable place in the history of mathematics and the English language to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gandalf61 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I think it's plenty notable, but don't think it should be an article all on its lonesome. I also don't think it should be shunted off to the last page of Wiktionary. Its notability is not in its placement in the alphabet, but its role in history. It may not be a big role, but it's there. Salix alba (below) makes a good point - we need an article on the history of the development of mathematical notation, and this "word" belongs right in there. Has anyone run across a page which deals with this issue? I have a lot of info about it, but I'm not sure how extensive my references are. Cbdorsett 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Weirdword has an interesting paragraph discussing the problems of expressing the powers of numbers before our notation was invented. The adoption of the modern notation is quite a significant event in the history of mathematical notation, and Zenzizenzizenzic achieves its notability as a precursor to this notation. Now there is nowhere in wikipedia where we document this transition or even who invented the , this seems precisely the sort of thing which wikipedia should address. --Salix alba (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 admitted hoax. gadfium 22:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Pounamu IV[edit]

Appears to be a hoax. The following discussion about it appeared on the NZ Wikipedians' notice board:

Tu Pounamu IV does not ring true. Not one of the names mentioned on the page gets a google hit, the language is unusual for an article about a Māori leader (Aboriginal, prince), Ngāti Awa do not come from Gisborne, etc. This not only needs references, it needs verification of the references. (The book is real, according to National Library catalogue, but its subject matter does not appear relevant). dramatic 09:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally bogus. BTW the creator of the article has made a reference to Tu Pounamu IV in Aquinas College, Tauranga, giving Grey's Polynesian Mythology as a source for the family having converted from Ringatuism to Catholicism. Grey is purely and simply a collection of traditional stories, and makes no mention of Catholicism or Ringatuism - in fact Grey, first published around 1854, predates Ringatuism which was started AFAIK by Te Kooti who was much later in the 19th C. Kahuroa 14:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For these reasons I suggest deletion. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much debate amooung my peers at Otago as to the legitamacy of the scrutiny and investigation of wikipedia articles. This "hoax" was the created (by me and a collegue) for the purpous of the investigation of the reliability and to find out how much time it would take for wikipedian articles to be identified as hoaxes. Congradulations. it has taken a fortenight.Tu Pounamu IV is simply non existant. "Jade Gray" was a randomly selected student from the old school yearbook. Aquinas College was randomly selected as his "school". (mainly because I board in a bording house that shares the name).The picture was scanned from out of the local news paper and the image was picked because the character was the darkest most maori looking in it. (hence the blurr). so dont get your heckles up, atleast you managed to prove the reliability of wikipedia and change the minds of some of your harshest critics. GerradPier 08:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:20Z

Scott Long (Reality TV contestant)[edit]

Scott Long (Reality TV contestant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - thre do not appear to be independent sources to establish notability. Should he actually appear in that "SAG film" the article hints at, in a substantial role, then perhaps he'll pass but for now he should go. Otto4711 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:19Z

UNIT dating controversy[edit]

UNIT dating controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Consists by definition of fan speculation. Indiscriminate jumble of dates and contradictory "evidence." Compare to a similar, now-deleted article for The West Wing. Andrew Levine 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Just take a look at Star Trek: Enterprise... DrWho42 23:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. No delete vote. PeaceNT 08:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Erdman[edit]

Prodded on grounds of non-notable, no google hits, article fails WP:COI, WP:V and WP:SPAM all links on site are back to Mr. Erdman's own webpage. Richhoncho 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:17Z

Left Behind (Lost)[edit]

Left Behind (Lost) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One of Us (Lost) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Catch 22 (Lost) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

All of the information in this article (except for it being a Kate flashback) is unofficial and has not been confirmed by the producers or stars of Lost or ABC. It is based upon rumour from Spoilerfix.com. SergeantBolt (t,c) 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [absolutely none of the information purported in the articles is official - none of it has been confirmed. Also, the title for episode sixteen, The Truth About Lying, was revealed by Carlton Cuse in a televised interview, yet the page One of Us (Lost), has been created even though The Truth About Lying was created days before.]:

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:21Z

ECG, Inc.[edit]

ECG, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I prodded this, prod removed on the grounds I did not notify the instigator of article. Reasons for listing include WP:COI, WP:SPAM , WP:NN and WP:CITE (not that I could find any independent sources, but somebody else might). Richhoncho 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted as copyvio (CSD G12). -- Merope 08:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Brunswick, NJ Public Saftey[edit]

East Brunswick, NJ Public Saftey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nom - Fails WP:N. Falls clearly under WP:NOT. Speedied once already. Rklawton 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:21Z

Tobacco Bad Kids[edit]

Tobacco Bad Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable article Guroadrunner 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:17Z

Jan Cox (philosopher)[edit]

Jan Cox (philosopher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

not a notable person and I can't find anything that says he was a philospher, anywhere outside of his own site. This bio has, though not currently, been a page full of debate. If you google this guy, you will note that only two places show up, his site and wikipedia. I went to the profile months ago to cool down the hostile debates and even after later posting on the Philosophy Wikproject, nothing[24]. I see no reason to keep an article that can't attract non-follower comments or even any reliable or verifiable sources. Addionally, most of the language was changed by me to remove the obvious POV, and I will not be offended to see it go. Additionally, I found that others agree here [25] --Maniwar (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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