The result was Speedy delete just as AfD was made, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Youtube channel, no reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)===Dana Galkowicz===[reply]
Dana Galkowicz was the first brazilian victim of a misseli fired from the Gaza Strip into israeli territory .
Many groups took responsability for this , among then : Hamas , Jihad and Fatah .
Text write by Natan galkowicz , father of Dana
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:Notability guideline. Appears to be vanity article. Definite WP:COI issues and questions. No hits on Google Book[1], Finance[2], News[3], searches. Yet when you do a Google Web search[4] I see a spam-like pattern PR campaign. I conclude that this Wikipedia article is part of that PR campaign. SaltyBoatr 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mayor of small place (pop 5,938), no big achievements outside of the field, so fails notability (see WP:AFDP). Punkmorten 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Manufactured bands" does get some ghits and seems to be a term that is close to emerging from being a neologism. But I don't think it's there yet, not to WP's standards at least. Otherwise, this article is completely a work of original research, and the best I can do to remove the OR is to scale this back to a dictdef. hateless 23:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn pending discussion. Coredesat 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable piece of software that does not have coverage in reliable sources, and will most likely never have anything besides self references to its official site. TTN 22:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete and utter original research by the looks of it. One Night In Hackney303 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Neologism WP:RS Stub category since April. A Google search reveals only a few pages, most of which are references to Wikipedia. Verdatum 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. delldot talk 07:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of being thorough, we ought to consider this article as well which details an unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis like the others mentioned today. Delete. Coccyx Bloccyx 22:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Based on a careful analysis of the arguments presented, I felt few of the reasons for deletion were compelling from a policy or guideline perspective, and many of the keep arguments were. Many brief comments citing a lack of notability for the article were unaware of the scope of coverage (local vs. national). Although an interesting comment was raised concerning International vs. United States bias, the fundamental question from this argument is: Do we remove content to counteract this bias, or do we attempt to improve coverage in other areas? It is an interesting question, but the location for this discussion is elsewhere. Coverage on a national level remains sufficient for WP:BIO.
Other notabilty concerns revolve around the notability of the target versus the event. As W.Marsh mentions, this can be solved by renaming.
Other arguments for deletion revolve around WP:NOT, particularly that Wikipedia is not a memorial or a news source. These arguments are compellingly refuted by John254's thoughtful commentary. The article does not function as a memorial to individual victims of a larger scale tragedy (cf. Virginia Tech Massacre). Contrast effects are important here when considering the scope and scale of events in real world terms. Neither has a compelling case been made for harm of living persons.
The arguments for keeping are consistent and center around the article's reliable and verifiable sources, and that the scale and scope of these sources confer notability per WP:N (at least to the event, if not the person herself). Although other arguments for keeping do cite articles on other dead white women, and this is apparently an argument that should be avoided according to some essays; the presence of these articles does indicate an overriding consensus for the inclusion of high profile murder victims should they pass the community-determined criteria for notability. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
joshschr 03:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The extensive media coverage of Emily Sander in multiple reliable sources cited in Emily_Sander#Notes clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. While WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is often misinterpreted to imply that "subjects whose notability is derived solely from the manner of their deaths are not notable for Wikipedia's purposes", the plain language of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL clarifies its purposeA topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does actually furnish independent grounds for deletion. WP:NOT#NEWS has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. Whatever the merits of ever raising WP:NOT#NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious WP:BLP issues[1], WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here. Indeed, WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of Emily Sander cited in Emily_Sander#Notes would therefore suggest that this person is, indeed, an "encyclopedic subject". The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence.Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
*Delete. Wannabe porn star gets picked up (or picks up someone) in a bar, leaves with him and gets killed. Where's the notability in that? Cut through the titillation and the voyeuristic element and it is just another sad case of a young life cut short. Let's try to elevate Wikipedia above the level of The National Enquirer. Krford 23:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Changing to Rename - see below.[reply]
First I think think some of the comments on this board are blatantly disrespectful to victims of crimes. Yes Ms. Sander is not the first victim of a crime. Her story is told over and over again in the murders of women everywhere. Besides Children women are the most victimized in society. My wife and three daughters are growing up in a world where Males seem to have horrible control issues. This story was important and continues to be important but not for the reasons most people seem to hang on to. The fact this young lady posed nude on the internet should not be the focus. Yes it probally was a mistake but not one she should die over. This case should stay a topic until the killer is brought to justice. Perhaps not such a big story as it is now but a story none the less. I just hope the porn star accusations will go away. Despite what others may think Emily was not a porn star. She was no more a porn star than a playboy plamate. No one calls those girls porn stars. We live in a world of hypocrites. They call Emily a porn star in the press and go in their own homes and hotels and watch porn movies behind closed doors. Shame on society. Emily was a human being and did not deserve her fate. Good Day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.15.221 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:N nor WP:V. Article appears to be WP:OR and WP:NPOV and this seems to already be adequately covered in Dictator#.22The_benevolent_dictator.22. Collectonian 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Closeapple 10:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. nothing to merge as it's unsourced WP:NOR Secret account 00:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Zork game articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete. Within the Zork universe, the "White House" is quite notable; and as such I recommend the merging of any pertinent reliably sourced information into either Zork I or Zork. But it certainly does not meet the notability requirements for fiction. (03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC))"
In the previous nomination, JJL (talk · contribs) suggested that Chuck's pilot episode might have referenced the White House. I have since seen that episode, and while it does reference Zork I, it does not reference any content within this article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-given title applied to a single person with a mention of another person using it as his IRC nickname? I'm finding it hard to find its use as an IRC nickname notable at all, and Rossum's original use of the title does seem notable outside of his own article. Previously AfDed with Keep and suggestion of merging into The Cathedral and the Bazaar however, nothing in the article appears to relate to that, so reAfding as it is already covered with about the same breadth as Guido van Rossum. Collectonian 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Closeapple 10:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. currently unsourced, WP:NOR, Secret account 00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Metal Gear game articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. east.718 at 00:36, December 1, 2007
Game appears to be completely fake. Uses http://maiji.deviantart.com/art/Bandit-Hunters-39522006 which is not only done without the original artist's consent, but is also a fanart of a completely unrelated game. The ESRB rating is also a hoax, as the ESRB's website has no records of a game named Bandit Hunters, even with the RP rating. Finally, BlinDVault Studios apparently does not exist beyond Wikipedia articles. Onyxstraten 21:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article for a software program that is not sufficiently notable per WP:CORP. Specifically, this program has not “been the been the subject of coverage in secondary sources”, such sources being “reliable, and independent of the subject.”
This article was deleted at its first AfD nomination, but then kept at a second AfD discussion. I did not believe that second result was correct, but instead of a DRV review I decided to give the article time to improve, if possible. It has now been over a year and no substantive improvements have been made. In fact, the article still contains not one single third-party source, and I was unable to locate any reliable ones that provide non-trivial coverage of the subject. It is time for deletion again. — Satori Son 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, shuttered preschool, seems to have been the subject of a very local controversy over its closure. Prod tag sneakily removed. AnteaterZot 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Coredesat 03:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third time the article has been nominated for deletion. Talk Page shows a huge chunk of excised material with questionable sources and possible violations of WP:OR; this could also be reflected into the main article. References link print media: attempts to locate online sources met with little success. Asking people to provide other sources have been fruitless. I'm led to believe the article is nothing more than fancruft, and is in violation of WP:SYN, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 293.xx.xxx.xx 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
doesnt seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Reads like a PR piece Hu12 12:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was Speedy delete as non-notable musician, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician, no chart listings, cannot find anything to verify this artist's notability. CSD remove by author, PROD removed by anon. Wildthing61476 20:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chill'Will discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Result was Delete. James086Talk | Email 10:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notabaility not established. Hammer1980·talk 20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by User:Ioeth, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I just don't get it, this is not an article at all. Do we allow placeholders like this? If nothing more is to be said, I have to say delete. Coccyx Bloccyx 19:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Dining club is considered notable in the discussion down the page, then maybe this article could be merged into it or vice versa. If the discussion establishes that it doesn't warrant an article then maybe this should be deleted too. Hammer1980·talk 19:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this property notable ? Edgar Allan Poe's last address. No references in the article. A little on Google. Hammer1980·talk 19:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 05:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create the article, but have been the principal editor for several months, and have come to the conclusion that this incomplete manga (which didn't last long enough to fill a collected volume on its own) does not meet the notability requirements. Certainly it does not meet notability requirements for books, and while that guideline does not completely apply here, it is indicative. I'm bringing it to AfD rather than PROD on two considerations:
I disagree, and so propose deleting the article and replacing it with a redirect to Kiyohiko Azuma. —Quasirandom 19:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information already exists within Local derbies in the United Kingdom. this appears to be OR Whitstable 19:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep: the nomination was withdrawn, and other editors initially favoring deletion now favor keeping the article, so I have closed under the speedy keep guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing notable asserted about this middle school. Arthurrh 18:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Oxymoron83 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, and I can't find any information on the internet to verify this is true. Mangostar 18:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; It was me who created the page. You cannot find information on the internet because there are none: that is why I thought putting it on Wikipedia could be a good choice. If you wish, I could include the fact that every De Pietro on Brazil has these habits and know this precise history. If someone bother asking them, they will confirm (there are about 20 members in several cities). Thanks;
The result was delete. WP:V concerns weren't met in this AFD Secret account 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to establish notablilty. No references and nothing much on Google on this club. Are dining clubs notable ? Hammer1980·talk 18:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed speedy tag I placed and put the article up for discussion. I can't see how it is particularly a notable subject. Also seems to fail WP:DICTIONARY. Hammer1980·talk 18:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly in the last century, dining clubs were a major institution, and most notable figures in fields such as politics, law, journalism etc. still are. We wouldn't delete the gentlemen's club article would we, and what are dining clubs of not mobile gentlemen's clubs? Grunners 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under criterion A7 (or maybe G11) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) Flexsim[edit]Appears to be a company-endorsed advert, written entirely by a couple of anonymous contributers in a subjective, second person colloquial style that promotes the product, eg: "Improvements that previously took you months or years of trial-and-error experimentation to achieve can now be attained in a matter of days and hours using Flexsim." Article has also been entirely devoid of citations or explicit assertion of notability since its creation six months ago, and is all but orphaned. - Yeanold Viskersenn 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spebi 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Xun She Kung Fu[edit]
Notability, unsourced not claim to notability including history of number of paractioners Nate1481( t/c) 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spebi 04:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wickedness[edit]Dictionary entry combined with non-notable, unsourced information. Flex (talk/contribs) 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. Secret account 00:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Numbuh One[edit]Fictional characters from KND with no sign of real world notability. Coverage exist in the multiple character lists: villains, one-time villains, allies and other characters, families, Foreign Operatives plus the "sector" articles, see ((Codename: Kids Next Door characters)). « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 22:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Oxymoron83 10:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] European Poker Players Hall of Fame[edit]
Delete nn hall of fame set up by one guy - only source is his website and presumably there is no real "hall" where we can see relics of the famous set out - their winning hands, their lucky charms, their mirrored sunglasses, or sample their favorite cocktails. "European Poker Players Hall of Fame" generates 43 ghits mostly WP and mirrors and little by way of RSes.Carlossuarez46 17:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of rapcore artists[edit]
The list has no refs and it's replaceable with Category:Rapcore groups. Also, rapcore doesn't even have its own article - it's a redirect to rap rock. Funeral 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. delldot talk 08:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] White widow (cannabis)[edit]
Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A similar search] with "newspaper" gave things like [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390669/the_great_california_weed_rush/print this article] from Rolling Stone 's Politics section. Here's an article from The Independent from London. Here's an article from the Miami New Times where the Neighborhood Fish Farm was awarded "Best place to go stoned" in a long list of otherwise legitimate-sounding awards. (For example the award to Ricky Williams didn't include a marijuana joke.) Barno 00:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Toronto Hydro (marijuana)[edit]
Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 17:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] East coast sour diesel[edit]
Unsourced (well... there's one, but it's a link to the Urban Dictionary!) and non-notable strain of cannabis-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 17:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. delldot talk 09:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Martinsound Studios[edit]
Non-notable recording studio. 2 edits total, created in April 2006 then 1 edit in May 2006. No references/sources. Very vague assertion of notability. WebHamster 17:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, no verifiability or sources other than a forum for a long time, no prejudice to re-creation if these problems can be resolved. BLACKKITE 23:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Silver Haze[edit]Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 17:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice to re-creation should verifiability and sourcing problems be solved. BLACKKITE 23:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Santa Maria (Cannabis)[edit]
Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 17:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice to re-creation should verifiability and sourcing problems be solved. BLACKKITE 23:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Neville's haze[edit]AfDs for this article:
Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 23:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lowryder[edit]unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice to re-creation should verifiability and sourcing problems be solved. BLACKKITE 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kushage (strain)[edit]
Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice to re-creation should verifiability and sourcing problems be solved. BLACKKITE 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kali mist[edit]Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 23:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jock Horror[edit]Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice to re-creation should verifiability and sourcing problems be solved. BLACKKITE 23:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Haze (strain)[edit]
Unreferenced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice to re-creation should verifiability and sourcing problems be solved. BLACKKITE 23:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Green Crack[edit]Non-notable and uncourced variety of cannabis -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Per Bach Nissen[edit]
The result was Keep. BLACKKITE 23:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Chocolate Thai[edit]
Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice to re-creation should verifiability and sourcing problems be solved. BLACKKITE 23:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Black Jack (strain)[edit]
Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. BLACKKITE 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] BC Bud[edit]unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice, pending reliable sources. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Afghan Kush[edit]Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice to re-creation if sourcing & verifiability available. BLACKKITE 23:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] AK 47 (strain)[edit]AfDs for this article:
Unsourced non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of industrial metal musical groups[edit]
The list has no refs and it's easily replaceable with Category:Industrial metal musical groups. Funeral 15:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and cleaned up the article for good measure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority[edit]
The result was delete - there seems to be the general consensus that the move isnt notable enough to have its own article. Integration into the Ruy Lopez article with probably one sentence, considering the size of the article, and even the mergers seem to be leaning toward deletion. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nuremberg Variation[edit]
Although not quite as obscure or as ridiculous as the Australian Gambit (also on AFD), this is another very minor subvariation. A look at ChessBase's database ([19]) gives 178 hits which is not many. (For comparison, the Classical Variation of the Ruy Lopez opening, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 is not the main line either, but has more than 2000 entries.) Perhaps the most notable games employing the variation covered in this article are the games Steinitz played in Nuremburg, but few or no masters have taken this line seriously since. The only source in the article is a Geocities website which does nothing beyond defining the moves. The chess opening tome Modern Chess Openings does not cover it. A discussion at WT:CHESS#One article for each variation ? suggested that for a separate article on an opening variation, there should probably be a book devoted that variation. For coverage in the main article on the parent opening, I think there should be some professional analysis which dicusses the variation. With the very minor level of coverage this variation has received, I think deletion is on the table. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (who is going to be playing the first round of a tournament today, and will probably be punished horridly by Caissa for nominating a chess article for deletion.)[reply]
The result was Keep, page was improved and nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] NIHE (disambiguation)[edit]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Free Capitalist Project[edit]
Sources cited seem mostly unreliable. Article contains much more information than appears to be publicly available, so possible advertising. Poor assertion of notability in the article with virtually no references that back the notability up. Most edits to the article, and nearly all content contributions have come from what appear to be single-purpose accounts (view article history and contribs for details). Article was created by User:Rick koerber, who is supposedly the founder of the article subject. Article has had contributions from User:Equity Milling; "equity milling" is a real-estate technique invented by Rick Koerber. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Spellcast 03:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] William Massa[edit]
An IP claims that the subject of the article apparently wants his Wikipedia biography removed. I'm bringing this here to see if this guy passes WP:BIO. Spellcast 13:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete after subtracting the voters who have made few edits --JForget 00:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Unreal Tournament 3 Online Multiplayer Activities and Community[edit]
The article consists solely of advertisements for other websites, links to offsite resources, and information that is true of all multiplayer games. Also, this article consists solely of original research, and consists entirely of content that was previously judged to be irrelavent (for the purposes of wikipedia) in the main article). Gundato (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 00:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Handmaiden's Tale[edit]
TV episode with no claim to notability. Does not deserve its own article per WP:EPISODE. Nehwyn (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That said, there's several other Gossip Girl episodes up for deletion, all listed seperately, and the same applies to all of them in my opinion... I'd prefer to keep, as I have a very hard time believing that these episodes are somehow less notable than most of the episodes of all these other shows -- notability seems to have been stretched a fair amount when it comes to tv shows. That said, rather than delete entirely, I would merge and redirect content back into the list of Gossip Girl episodes page, which already exists -- people are going to be looking for these pages as it's a current show. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Home network --JForget 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Home networking[edit]
Delete - all the topics covered are already well covered in other articles, and this adds nothing. Mayalld (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Judicial hellhole[edit]
Term was an uncontested prod for almost 3 months before being deprodded. Term is a perjorative dictionary definition only in use by the American Tort Reform Association, a partisan and biased group, and has little usage outside that group. Is an inherently POV term and the article likely cannot grow beyond a stub. Any new information would be duplicative of forum shopping, which this article is also an intended merge to. Also note that the original creater of the page had a huge Conflict of Interest, in that he is directly related to the ATRA, which coined and is attempting to spread the term. A google search excluding variations on ATRA, American Tort Reform Assn, etc. has less than 500 hits, nearly all reprints of articles and press releases from the ATRA. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. declining the WP:SPA Secret account 00:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Christopher Sabatino[edit]
A body-builder who looks non-notable to me. prod/speedy declined. his personal webpage is http://docsab.homestead.com/DocSab.html Mangostar (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 13:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Road soda[edit]Prod contested by the author. A neologism. References that attempt to establish notability are to a broken link, and urban dictionary Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ancient Brotherhood[edit]
Does not assert notability of subject, may be notable though. Neranei (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete --JForget 00:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Currency correlation[edit]
Resurrection of a previously deleted article in the same form, see logs. Since correlations can be performed upon any 2 sets of data, having separate articles for each potential data set is unencyclopedic. The concept is comprehensively covered in the correlation article. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 11:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Probably should have been a CSD for previously deleted content, but anyway, delete per nom and prior deletion (via PROD). AvruchTalk 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, improve Currency correlation is widely used as a technical indicator by forex traders. If you want to delete this article, you should consider deletion of Momentum, Moving average and so on. IMO, this article should be improved and expanded, not deleted. reader, 13:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.60.121 (talk • contribs)
Some more background on this - Currency correlation was added - [23] as a specific example to the correlation article along with what were considered to be spam links - [24] which were removed with warning - User_talk:198.172.206.234. The duplicated explanation of a correlation was removed - [25] and then the remaining text - [26]. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) If deleted, please could you consider Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 15:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Lord Nicholas Windsor. This is technically a merge, as practically the entire article already exists at Lord Nicholas Windsor#Family. BLACKKITE 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Albert Windsor[edit]
AfD as per discussion. Not notable enough to have a separate article: a section within his father's article may be sufficient. Suggest replacing by redirect to Lord Nicholas Windsor. MightyWarrior (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Colbert Effect[edit]
Completely redundant; everything in this article (except for the "Colbert Bump," which can be merged if need be) has been adequately covered in The Colbert Report#Cultural impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemoney2night (talk • contribs) 09:36, 30 November 2007 Delete - it is covered already. mattbuck (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Everything there is (shouldbe?) covered in colberts article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete; no assertion of notability. James086Talk | Email 14:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Joris Lammers[edit]
Delete biographical stub which includes no indication of notability whatsoever. No reason to think this meets WP:PROFTEST. Doczilla (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. delldot talk 11:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Elliott Goldkind[edit]
The result was Delete as no sources to establish existence. Davewild (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Disney Channel Bombay[edit]
There were no sources found in the web and even on the Disney official site, that such a separate channel exists exclusively for Bombay. Even if it existed, I would have expected it to be named Disney Channel Mumbai and not Bombay, since the name Bombay is hardly in use nowadays. Noming it as "probable hoax" ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Indian attitudes toward Americans[edit]
This is basically a POV fork with a mix of original synthesis. The two news sources give barely mention India at all. The last three sources, the ones pertaining to crimes against US citizens, are entirely irrelevent (these constitute the original synthesis). They have nothing to do with anti-American sentiment. Crimes occur against US citizens in India? I think this happens everywhere. Indians protested Bush when he visited? Happens everywhere he goes. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete; I didn't see any assertion of notability. James086Talk | Email 09:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Gumbert.com-The 69 Factor[edit]
The article is just spam, vanity. Weirdy Talk 09:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Oxymoron83 09:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Connections Church[edit]
Page was speedy deleted by me, but a deletion, review correctly argued that the article at least has an assertioon on notability. Still, the assertion is rather weak, and is not supported by any reliable independent sources. Connections Church is apparently a network of churches around the world. Due to the fact that the term "connections Church" is used by many unrelated churches and groups, it is hard to judge the results of a google search. The fact that there are very little results for the pastor Rocky Veach[27] [28] [29], and that none of the few Google News results for "Connections Church" seem to be about this organisation[30], gives the impression that this organisation has not been noted by the outside world yet. The text talks about churches from Anchorage to Colorado, but again, there is no evidence that e.g. the Anchorage church is in any way notable[31]. I know that Google is not the ultimate indicator of notability, but it's up to those wanting to keep the article to provide us with good reliable, independent sources. Fram (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How notable does an organization have to be, because there are definite articles that are only notable locally, or to a niche group. Within the COC group, everyone knows Rocky Veach or his Times of Refreshing Ministries. The fact that he has changed the name of many of his operations, doesn't make him less notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.45.253 (talk • contribs) 22:44, December 1, 2007
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Think Gum[edit]No assertions of notability. Article was up for speedy as advertising, but seems to hold aim for an objective POV. Taemyr (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] John Levi Martin[edit]
Seems like a non-notable professor. No awards, no strong assertions of notability in the article and his CV lists just two recent publications. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Lot of hits in Google Scholar and Google Books. The article needs some sources though -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The issue that needs to be addressed is does the subject achieve notability as verified by reliable sources. Despite the article being in existence for a year, and the prompt of this debate, that has not been achieved, as the argument for deletion makes clear. The keep argument simply isn't substantial, however generous one might feel towards it. Tyrenius (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Virginia Scruggs[edit]
This article is over a year old. During this period its principal contributors have been encouraged to show notability and back up claims with evidence. At the end, what we have is an article about somebody who's primarily notable for her photography, but the sum of whose known photographic work is:
It's also clear that she owns one or more works by one Patricia Gaines. And that's it. I had thought that a notable photographer was one whose work was critically reviewed. Critical reviews can of course be hard to dig up, so book-length collections that aren't merely self/vanity-published and/or solid evidence of solo exhibitions of more than merely local significance would be fine too. The only thing above that even seems worth mentioning is that one-seventeenth part of one exhibition. And this despite the age of the article. Negligible notability. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was apparent hoax. DS 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Beebe's monster[edit]Appears to be a hoax. I can find absolutely no mention of this supposed animal on any sites apart from Wikipedia and its mirrors.[35] If it was truly "a prime example of cryptozoology turned zoology" then I'm sure it would have received a lot more attention. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Oxymoron83 09:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Praveen E.P[edit]Looks like a hoax. Ghits are dismal and don't reflect the claims the article makes at all. Prod removed by anon (99.9% chance of being the author logged out). JuJube (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 00:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Boise State Effect[edit]
Blatant neologism; one hit at Google that's not this wiki article. AUTiger » talk 05:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as there are no sources that mention this "effect," only one source that mentions the game that the article claims inspired it. WP:MADEUP much? Epthorn (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete this term has existed under numerous names in the past, and will use other names in the future. There is no unique claim to this definition. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete as WP:NEO. JJL 15:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 05:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lee Anna Clark[edit]
Delete non-notable individual. Like her, I'm a psychology professor, I have publications, and I've been an officer in an organization -- not a bit of which makes either of us notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Also, given that Clark made one COI addition to List of clinical psychologists, I question the origin of this article about her. Doczilla (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Gordon Claridge[edit]
Delete this bio stub for insufficient and unverified notability. Doczilla (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 00:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Treatment program[edit]
Purely WP:original research, creator's own views (WP:NPOV), and, if all that were removed, redundant. The topic is already well covered by more specific articles. Collectonian (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Docg 01:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wedgie[edit]AfDs for this article:
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is a term, not a encyclopedic article and its already covered in School prank. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Llewdor[edit]Does not meet WP:N nor WP:FICT. Unsourced, in-universe game plot and fancruft about an unnotable fictional country with no reliable real world sources. Collectonian (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Fayenatic (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Joystix[edit]Completely unsourced and unverifiable. There is are some user made fonts named Joystix, but no reliable source found for an actual font called Joystix used in the manner described here. Does not meet WP:N Collectonian (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Plot summary and trivia. BLACKKITE 19:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour 2: When Nerds Collide[edit]
Contested prod. Non-notable cartoon episode. Article nothing more then a plot summary with no real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Cornelius Quartet[edit]
Fixing unfinished nom by User:Folk smith. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The user Nick mallory continues to place stubs w/o applying the proper tags. Both Sinclair and I asked the user to not post these "articles" w/o identifying them as stubs. He has refused to do so. I would suggest that instead, this article and the others like it that I have flagged be merged into the article for Michael Moorcock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folk smith (talk • contribs) 04:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:V SkierRMH (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] FOLAP[edit]Cannot find any references to FOLAP neither on Internet nor in the OLAP literature, this doesn't seem to be existing technology. Wikiolap (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Even though Alaney2k has done good work with article, he has no address WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL, and there is consensus for that. --Maxim(talk) 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] CASH line[edit]Article fails WP:N as the name this line has been given is not yet notable as far as the history of the NHL goes. Perhaps time will prove me wrong, but Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball so we cannot assume that it will be notable in the future. The CASH line, in itself, is simply not yet notable, even though the players that are on it are obviously notable. Pparazorback (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Australian Gambit[edit]
This stub lists an uncommon chess opening that does not require listing. Tavix (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--NickPenguin(contribs) 05:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Secret account 00:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wal-Mart (disambiguation)[edit]
This is not really a true 'disambiguation page', as it's more a list of links to other Wal-Mart-related articles that are already linked to from the Wal-Mart article itself. Furthermore, there's no need for a disambiguation page anyway, since anyone searching for "Wal-Mart" is obviously looking for information about the company, and there's no other companies of the same name. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete SkierRMH (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Edward Pelle[edit]I think it's a hoax. Google shows no sources except this one which appears to be about a different person with the same name. There is also no IMDB entry for this person. ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was I find the arguments for deletion convincing. Expecially the ones pertaining to BLP and NN/Advertising. Result is delete.. Mercury 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Pathways Health and Research Centre[edit]
WP:SPAM. There may be some notability here, but this entire cluster of articles have been created as blatant advertisement by this organization as evinced by the single-purpose usernames used to create and edit these pages even after others have been closed for the same reason.
(some of these are also up for speedy but are included for completeness) -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I am friend of the original article creator with lots of knowledge of the subject matter, but also a wikiholic and i very much understand the criticisms of past pages. I am in the process of drastically editing the pages back to relevant encylopedic detail. I am leaving focus and friends (incorporating fun friends) as short articles as they are actually fairly independent of pathways - pathways just does some propogating relating to them. Indeed, they were being used 10 years before pathways existed. I am also up for the possibility that pathways does not reach notability and have cleaned it up but i am willing to concede that it could go.The independent Fun friends article can be deleted though. Does anyone have any objections to this? - Tom Heard 124.185.60.63 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.60.63 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was consensus to merge per WP:POV and WP:N to SRI International. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Early psi research at SRI[edit]
Just what we need! Another article inflating the importance of the brief 1970s fad for psychic "research". Guy (Help!) 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent article - As it is not that big that a subpage is needed yet. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Stone of Anamara[edit]
The page for Stone of Anamara is very similar to a deleted page for a game of similar standing in Internet viewership and acclaim, Exmortis (archived deletion log at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exmortis. Upon more detailed inspection, the game was merely an entrant in the IGF's competition, and is thus not notable for that reason. I cannot personally account for the other sites' notability, save that LANACION is of repute; I am not sure how its short review is to be taken as weight. Game Guru listed Exmortis in the same fashion. PrescitedEntity (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Science humour[edit]
Regretfully nominating this potentially interesting article. An original research: A random collection of examples of humor on scientific topics. No references to scholarly discussion of this topic, only references to particular examples
The result was redirect to light-emitting diode. There isn't anything in this article that is not already said in Ohm's law or its parent article, so nothing to merge. I took a look at the references provided, but they only reinforce the view that whenever LED circuits are mentioned in the literature they have no unique properties other than those of the LED load. In the end, I conclude that an LED circuit is just a electrical circuit with a light-emitting diode as a load. That's all - nothing to deserve its own article. In this debate a lot of people have wrongly conflated the notability of LEDs themselves (which are of course notable) with that of an electrical circuit which simply has one. Lastly, since the nominator offers a reasonable argument for deletion and equally reasonable responses to some comments, "keep" comments that are solely based on the nominator's role as SPA have been disregarded. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] LED circuit[edit]This is an application of ohms law, not a notable or unusual circuit in any way. Although included in many cheat sheets and quick references it is not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. I noted this and tagged the page for deletion but the tag was removed without any justification. A blitter (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)— A blitter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Puffle[edit]AfDs for this article:
I see no notability outside of this game. Article is very poorly written with much OR/POV. No references, completely in universe. Written as some sort of guide perhaps. SpigotMap 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete, 99% hoax likelyhood, completely unsourced. — xaosflux Talk 04:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wozniak News: Attack of the 50 Foot Raccoon![edit]
Suspected hoax- no Google hits, box and character art apparently created in Microsoft Paint. CoJaBo (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Dict-def, already an entry at wikitionary.[40]. Pastordavid (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Quim (slang)[edit]AfDs for this article:
This article is a dictionary definition - Wikipedia is not a dictionary and slang/idiom guides are specifically discouraged by policy. Additionally none of the sources given are actually about the word - the definition given on the page is not even sourced - they just show it being used, simply showing that a
* it's good enough for Robert Burns who used it MANY times in this collection of poetry http://www.robertburns.org.uk/merrymuses.htm and also for Chaucer translations. what this boils down to is indeed a form of cenrorship. it's only a word, just a word, with a legitimate history and used by serious and regarded authors, poets and others. now according to the oxford dictionary and word ceases to be slang after ten years of constant use by the masses.......hmmm when was chaucer translated with this word used as a substitute for cunt?... when was Burns? well, it's a word in common usage now too. given time it may even grow to include some stuff about Burns and Chaucer translations i will add to give it the proper historical context. just because you see it as a silly word , doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. this is not being being insulting , nor is it me being pretentious. it's a word, with a history and deserves an entry to show this history. to remove this history and the word from wiki IS censorship , defined by the very act of removing it. 03:33 6th December 2007 (GMT)--Pax681
The result was keep. John254 00:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Meaning of life[edit]AfDs for this article:
After years of trying, it simply doesn't seem possible to provide an article based on reliable sources that complies with WP:NPOV on so vast a topic. The article began before our policies on sourcing took their current shape. It has long consisted of a series of claims that scientists, humanists, theists, etc. think a certain way, generally sourced to at most one opinion-maker. It doesn't seem possible to construct an article that is more than an original research synthesis. The variety of opinion on the subject appears simply to be too vast. If I am wrong I could not be more pleased. Shirahadasha (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete SkierRMH (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Multi level theory and analysis[edit]
No NPOV, and needs a MAJOR wikifying. Sounds like a copyvio, too. Jonathan (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by User:Philippe, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jesus and the Lizards[edit]
Unverifiable; gets no Google hits that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. Okay, so there are one or two empty profiles on genre websites that probably created empty profiles because of the Wikipedia article, but that's still falling short of WP:RS and WP:V. The only thing I can verify via Google is that there's a musician in Ottawa named Eric Brynaert, who's currently in a non-notable punk band called The Brain Eaters. Willing to withdraw nomination if somebody can provide real sources, but right now I strongly suspect self-promotion with a bit of hoax thrown in for good measure. Delete if unsourced at closure.Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Docg 01:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Stalinists[edit]
I nominated this list for deletion nearly two years ago. Although there was no consensus to delete the list then, some of the worst entries (like Charlie Chaplin and Pablo Picasso) were removed during the process. The fundamental problem with this list is that it consistently fails WP:V and WP:RS. Even now, when the list has only 10 entries, eight of them are completely uncited. One of these eight (Ludo Martens) is apparently still alive (according to his Wikipedia article) and might well take offense to being labeled a Stalinist. That brings me to the second problem with this list: "Stalinist" is basically a smear word. Virtually no one self-identifies as Stalinist; most people who are described as such would call themselves Marxist-Leninists, anti-revisionists, or simply communists. We don't have any consistent criteria for who should be on this list or why. At the top of the list, it says that the article "does not include non-Soviet communists and sympathizers," which would limit it to only citizens of the former USSR. But then further down there is a specific section for "Communist party leaders in non-Communist states," which completely contradicts the opening assertion. On the last AFD, User:TDC said that "we have List of fascists, List of people described as neoconservatives, why not this one". Well, as you can see from the above red links, we don't have those articles any more. We shouldn't have this one either. *** Crotalus *** 06:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep- Peripitus (Talk) 05:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nigel Capel-Cure[edit]This chap played a single first class cricket match for Essex in 1929, in which he didn't do terribly well with the bat (scoring 0 and 6), and bowling just 11 overs to take a slightly expensive 2-58. Basically, one swallow does not make a summer, the article does not claim notability and it should be deleted. Tony May (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 00:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Supervillain (song)[edit]
The article doesn't cite any reference about being the next single of Nicole Scheringer and so it has no use Olliyeah 14:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Gardies[edit]This is a non-notable takeaway restaurant. Dancarney 15:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was I find the article to border on what may not be permitted within our biography of living persons to be deleted to err (if we err) on the side of caution as borderline.. Mercury 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lakshmi Tatma[edit]AfDs for this article:
Although there was a lot of media attention to his girl, it's just another girl with a parasitic twin. Many articles were created about children with parasitic twins, such as Manar Maged, and were deleted. I see no point in creating an article like this,and I say Merge or redirect to parasitic twin or conjoined twins
|