Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< March 15
March 17 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Paintmash

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

verifiability are significant questions. Is this a common term? --Stratadrake 00:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree as above.
Manik Raina 09:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

ROH Alumni

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

Serves no real purpose as it was already listed on

Ring of Honor roster and removed to create this page. I've already re-added it to ROH roster page. PepsiPlunge 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Tyrenius 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Howell (footballer)

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

Not notable. Only played for minor clubs. Epbr123 00:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete the merge option was discussed immediately prior to this AfD on the article talk page and rejected. Gnangarra 11:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Chaos

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

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

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

Hmm, except you keep blocking attempts at any discussion on a merge. Still, I don't want to be accused of a bad faith nomination, so I won't mind if the moderator wants to move this discussion elsewhere. Marasmusine 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is a merge, not a delete; since you wouldn't allow the merge proposal tag to stay up for even a day (along with other maintaince tags and even this CfD tag), that's why I've brought it to Articles for Discussion.
Let me make my proposal again; the entirity of the
Sangokushi for example. The Team Chaos article shows that the games have the same basic gameplay, but with each iteration improving on the graphics and features, so should be resonably easy to set up (especially if the 'Rules of the game' section is trimmed down.) Marasmusine 07:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Naturally, if there is a magazine article on Team Chaos then that needs to be linked on the page (despite all my 'smooth moves', I'm not psychic.) Marasmusine 07:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have falsely accused me of being a SPA. That makes you a troll. GreatGianaSister 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He just means your edit summary shows mostly edits to the articles in question, please don't take it personally. Marasmusine 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added link to interview with Team Chaos leader. SuperfrogJumps 02:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except you can't read it without extracting the file. Needs to be posted in text format on the web somewhere to be a valid more useful link.
    Talk 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • No, I realise this, but to be honest I was trying to help the nominator - "valid" wasn't the right word to use. But it wouldn't take long to copy the text file to somewhere more accessible.
    Talk 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • See comment above.
    Talk 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Added 2 links to the 2 major Amiga news sources: Amiga.org and AmigaWorld.net about Team Chaos having released yet another game. GreatGianaSister 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have any problem with the archived interview. I've arranged the external links into subject (and removed the dead link to the 'home page' and the google search results link.) There's plenty of reference there suitable for the Total Chaos page, but still not much to justify a seperate Team Chaos article. I'm not sure about the notability of the references.
    I've also raised an issue on Talk:Total Chaos; if that page not ment to represent the whole series of games (and not just one game) why does the infobox show release dates from 1986 to the present (and the opening sentence confirms this)? THankyou for any clarification. Marasmusine 08:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Total Chaos article is meant to be about the Total Chaos series of games only. It is not meant to be about Chaos: Wizard War II (which I noticed you deleted the link out of the article) nor is it meant to be about Chaos: Return of the Wizards. The problem is that if we cram in those extra games then it sounds simple and easy doesn't it? But then ... you come to realize that the whole article then needs to be rewritten with lots of IF-THEN statements or other form of comments mucking up the article such as "This paragraph does not apply to Chaos: Wizard War II" or "blahblahblah except in Chaos: Wizard War II in which case yadayadayada". I sure as hell am not going to try to go through and fix all that, if it is even possible. StoneGiant 12:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so bad when you realise you don't have to go into details about the rules and spells etc, in fact the more consise there the better (see
    WP:NOT). In fact there's not much to say about the first two games anyway, as there's very little verifiable information out there about them. I'm sure it can work. Marasmusine 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'll stand by that edit, and what I said in the summary: (
WP:NOT; rm playing instructions, vanity, some informalities etc. Also probably no need for the full spell list.) Marasmusine
Was just scratching my head over the 'table of contents' there; it was automatically taken out after I tidied up the headings - I didn't deliberatly introduce a noTOC template or anything. I still think my revision was better. Marasmusine 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Here he just wantonly deletes Total Chaos] out of the
    Amiga Games article. There are 75 games in that article he could have deleted but didn't. He/she clearly has personal issues against this particular game and/or its developers. He/she edits other articles about games but does not behave this way against them so he is not just randomly vandalizing things, but targeting two specific articles. Its almost as if she is the ex-wife of one of the developers or something. StoneGiant 12:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Again, the edit summary; didn't see the point in listing one AGA game, especially as it seems to suggest that none of the other games could be AGA. Marasmusine 15:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware of
Orderinchaos78 10:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is very hard to sort out with the warring going on, I'll have a go. If I haven't summarised someone's contribution, it's because I believe the person's original comment spoke for itself.
Based on the above the consensus appears to be delete on the grounds of
Orderinchaos78 10:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep (see discussion, previous nom). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Godwin's Law

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

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

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

  • Keep. Notable meme. --Eastmain 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will speedy close unless someone provides a more in-depth rationale. Please take more than ten seconds to fill out an AfD nom, put some thought into it, and try a little harder to convince the community that the previous (and rather strong) consensus to keep the article should be overturned. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The references in the article show multiple, reliable, independent coverage -- the very definition of notable in Wikipedia. Noroton 02:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all this "meme" stuff is questionable and the article is a little heavy on the OR, but it does cite several reliable print sources that satisfy
    Krimpet 02:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Excuse me, Epbr123, where do you get the idea that "Wired"[2] magazine and "Reason"[3] magazine are not reliable print sources? That's two, that's multiple, and that's enough. Noroton 02:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wired article was writen by Godwin himself so is not independant. The Reason article states that Mike Godwin is now a Reason contributing editor, so this is not independant either. Epbr123 03:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or would you prefer The Washington Post? "There is a dictum in Internet culture called Godwin's Law (after Mike Godwin, a lawyer who coined the maxim), ..."[4]Noroton 02:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's only one reliable, independent piece of coverage. One more needed to make it multiple coverage. Epbr123 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, speedy keep but JJL, that has to be the worst AfD/notability reasoning I've seen to date. Have you actually read
    WP:SD are suddenly "notable" when they get (rightly) AfDed again? edit conflict - this is going in after the close. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

114th United States Congress

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

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

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Snork (musical)

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

Fails

WP:RS; there is no external coverage of this musical and it doesn't seem nearly recognized enough to meet notability standards. Crystallina 02:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Advertising by the Seven Network

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

Procedural nomination, based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advertising by Westpac. Andjam 02:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by author I created the article to supplement Australia at the Winter Olympics by describing advertising by Channel Seven for their coverage of the 2006 Winter Olympics. I did so to help document Australian attitudes towards Winter Sport (and their tendency to poke fun at themselves). However, I created "Advertising by Westpac" for a similar reason, and it has just got deleted. As "Advertising by Westpac" referred to a more noteworthy series of ads than this article does, it may as well get nominated now. The previous nomination of this article was part of a group nomination. Andjam 02:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN ad campaign. Lacks sources of any kind, as well. If reliable sources could be found to verify this information, it would probably still be better suited by merging the content somewhere, though I'm not sure where.
    Arkyan 16:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Simply not notable enough for separate article. Realkyhick 23:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN and prompotional.DaveApter 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Since nomination, the article has been somewhat rewritten to remove the attack tone. The article is certainly referenced. Is the person notable? I would say that being notorious is not the same as being notable, but that argument was not made. Most every commentor conceded his notability. Does the article violate

WP:BLP? In my view it does not, being rigorously referenced. I did not even count the votes because of the many puppets, but base the close strictly on strength of argument, which falls to the Keep view in my opinion. Herostratus 13:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Casey Serin

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

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

few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

  • Keep. *What, if any, part of this article seems to you to be incorrect? It is all well researched and most of the facts come from Casey Serin himself. If this is a vendetta, it is a vendetta that is being engineered by posting only the truth. Why protect? Is he suffering from battered blogger syndrome?— Preceding
    few or no other edits
    outside this topic.
Most of the facts can be verified from Serin's own blog. I don't think any set of facts would be terribly flattering towards him, but he has achieved quite a bit of notoriety, so he meets eligibility requirements for a Wiki article, and it shouldn't be deleted.
few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
Personal blogs are not a reliable source. Serin's blog, in particular, provides only primary information and is bound to be biased. To attempt to manufacture notoriety by engineering an attack page is exactly the worst method of creating a Wikipedia article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 70.106.162.29 (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
]


Many of the facts in the article are verifiable via the linked public newspaper articles and linked public records. Photographic evidence exists for many of the ancillary facts (i.e. Jamba Juice, Macaroni Grill, The Murse, The Million Dollar Home). If there is a single statement in the article that you do not find credible, note it. You are making an argument to remove an article based on the fact that you don't find the content credible and have yet to point out a single part of it that is not credible.— Preceding
few or no other edits
outside this topic.
User:70.106.162.29, please see Negative_proof. SkipSmith 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:SkipSmith, please understand that the burden of proof falls on the accuser. A lack of evidence for the delete crowd does provide strength to the keep crowd. Snu164 03:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof actually falls on the guy making the unlikely claim. 129.186.205.84 19:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, a person has claimed that this article should be removed due to NPOV and Resource issues, and has not given specific examples. Snu164 23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, this article is basically libel bait. Over the past two hours I've seen editors add and subtract personal information, baseless speculation, and random accusations. The tone of this article is nowhere near
Wikipedia standards for neutrality. I don't much care if the content is credible, my concern is that this is a biography tailored for the sole reason of disparaging its subject. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for character assassination, and the massive involvement by various blogs is detrimental to building any sort of encyclopedic article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. As a Realtor, and having followed the Casey Serin story since early October, and doing a good amount of reasearch on public records regarding his transactions, I believe the Casey Serin article is fair, accurate and unbiased as of 20:22 PST USA on 03/15/2007. There is considerable interest in the Mainstream Media about the story of Casey Serin, and the legal ramifications of his real estate transactions. Removing this article would be a disservice to Wikipedia, considering all the work and research that has gone into its creation. It is not an attack page. Instead, it is a well-researched and documented page that is important, regarding current real estate lending practices in the USA.
  • Keep. The subject person is notable. Considerable amount of external references are being quoted. Agree though that there are un-encyclopedic comments and personal attacks going on. --PeterMarkSmith 03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or revise to be consistent with NPOV/BLP policies and protect from further edits. The page seems designed to humiliate and harass the subject. Since its inception, it has included offensive or insulting references to Serin's religion, nationality, marriage, family relationships, and appearance - none of which seem particularly relevant. I also question the repeated posting of his family members' names, photographs, and contact information. Saranary 03:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think an article on Casey Serin should exist, but to claim that the article in its current form is unbiased is laughable. Do neutral encyclopedia articles contain phrases like "Visitors to his blog are usually surprised at his smug comments, where it's obvious he doesn't believe he has done anything wrong, and that he deserves a lifestyle which includes several luxuries he can't afford to pay" and "Serin's personal eccentricities: his habitually unkempt haircut, his carrying a murse (which he refers to as his "man bag"), and his obsession with juicing"? Like I said, I believe an article on Casey Serin should exist, but only if it adheres to
    WP:BLP. SkipSmith 03:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree there's nothing inherently notable about Serin, except that other people have decided to talk about him. I guess that makes him the Paris Hilton of real estate --- famous for being famous. But if people are talking about him, that makes him notable, even if by more objective standards he's not unusual. SkipSmith 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depends, do claims of dubious notoriety trump the BLP/NPOV requirements of neutrality and doing no harm? Plenty of people were talking about Brian Peppers at one point, yet his article was little more than a freakshow. I'd rank Serin's claim of notability somewhere above Peppers' and quite a ways below Paris Hilton's. Hilton, at least, has a widely documented public image and a mainstream modelling/acting career. Serin has a series of technologically adept bloggers who actively maintain a clearly outlined smear campaign. I sure as hell wouldn't want to monitor this article for impropriety if it is kept, I'd go insane after a day's worth of back-and-forth edits! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear from the discussion at the Exurban Nation blog (linked in the afd-talk page) that there will be a concerted effort to continue adding information that contravenes BLP/NPOV policies for at least the near future. Saranary 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that too --- I just went to Exurban Nation and read the comments section regarding this article. It looks like a bunch of people on both sides are intent on having a pissing match over here, so it might be worth protecting the page for a week or two until the kids get bored and go away. SkipSmith 05:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite per
    WP:AWW. And even though many of the statements are sourced, certainly not all of them are. And some of it blatant opinion. If you're adding in to a biographical article a statement such as "many readers of such-and-such blog feel this certain way" about the subject, there's a pretty good chance that statement shouldn't be there. Mwelch 04:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delete this garbage. None of it can be verified.— Preceding

few or no other edits
outside this topic.

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

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

Saying that it's difficult not to make the article biased because the authors will inevitably demand justice/retribution from the subject is not a good argument for keeping it, in my opinion. Quite the opposite. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for revenge fantasies. 129.186.205.84 17:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nigel Swaby redirects to Casey Serin. Swaby is a supporter of Serin who has written about him several times on his blog. This redirect should be deleted; Swaby is not notorious in his own right, not is he closely enough associated with Serin to be synonymous with him. --Jkew 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find Nigel on the page. I assume this has been fixed. Snu164 03:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: There are a large number of edits here by IP addresses whose only contribution to Wikipedia is their post in this discussion. Does anyone know how to add the "this is not an election" template? SkipSmith 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be a lot of single-purpose ips/accounts on this discussion... you should go through and tag them with {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}} per the template at the top of the discussion. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done ... for now. SkipSmith 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. *THe Casey Serin Story is still evoling and the wiki should as well. The verifiable facts are sufficiently damning and unsubstantiated accusations should be redacted but a great disservice would be comitted if the article were to be removed just because the facts are so very distasteful. As a second point in favor of retention Casey Serin himself has sought the articles' expansion rather than requested its removal. —The preceding
    few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
I can see your point about Serin becoming the face of the real estate meltdown. The biggest problem with this article in its current form is that many of its inflammatory assertions have been sourced to Serin's blog, Ramit's blog, the Exurban Nation blog, other real estate blogs, google caches and Usenet. All of these are considered unreliable sources, as per
WP:ATTR, and cannot be used to support negative claims about a living person. Information gleaned from the news stories may be cited, of course. Saranary 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Right. Because so much of the story comes out of IAFF we are in murky ground in
WP:ATTR between "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" where "there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it" and "the article is not based primarily on such sources". Are there other blog-centric pages where this has been well hashed out for precedence? --Jake
  • The only one I could find was Kaycee Nicole, a blogger who claimed to be a high school girl suffering from leukemia. It's not a great precedent, since her story turned out to be a hoax. The practical upshot is that the article is now based on a Wired article and a Snopes.com summary of the story, rather than quotes from the blog itself. Hope that helps. Saranary 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jason Fortuny was deleted for attribution issues (blogs/craigslist). It's since been merged with Internet privacy. 129.186.205.84 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but with MAJOR rewrite. This article looks to be more mudslinging than anything else, with much reliance on blogs as sources. The guy appears to be notable (more properly, notorious), but this article is by no means NPOV. It looks more like a prosecutor building a case against the guy. Realkyhick 23:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you say that it is, primarily, an attack page? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a regular reader of Serin's blog and of Wikipedia (though rarely a contributor here), I would say the article accurately reflects the public persona Casey Serin has created for himself. He has built a popular blog by continually aggravating his readers, who in turn post sarcastic, hateful, and humorous responses which he allows through moderation. The article here is kind to him, compared to his own blog.
    few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
  • Keep. If he were just some guy who lost money on real estate, then there would be nothing to write. Casey Serin is notable not for his failed investments, but for the incredible level of detail he provides while talking about them. It's not just a blog; he has posted screenshots and scans of legal and financial documents that most people consider extremely private. The houses are relevant only to the extent that they make the exhibitionism interesting. If we have articles for porn stars, then it certainly makes sense to have one for him, for about the same reasons.
As far as what the article should say, and what references should be acceptable: this is a strange situation. Serin freely admits (on his blog, of course) to things that would be libelous if you accused someone of them. The anti-self-published guidelines on
WP:BLP are written to prevent Wikipedia from propagating someone's self-promotion. They don't seem to mention what to do about self-defamation. 24.91.135.162 04:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. I'm going to go with the poster above who notes that most of Serin's own entries are essentially self-defamatory. Serin admits to multiple acts of fraud, foolishness and self-delusion. Also, there are users who may appear to be single purpose IP's only due to the nature of the modern internet. My ISP uses DHCP, and resets the leases every 24 hours, plus, i wander between work, home and my mobile card, so i pop in and out of 3 Class A networks on a routine basis. Add in the fact, we are using NAT and it becomes very hard to predict what my IP is going to be. I don't login to Wikipedia, because, i want to be anonymous. I worked very hard just creating a table of entries of real estate deals done by Serin, and, i hate seeing it messed with. That table is essential to understanding what went on. YOu can see a slow movement, and then suddenly, a flurry of deals done as the cashback window was closing. Sadly, he blew much of his cash on a foolish house purchase in dallas. Which almost makes him an object of pathos. —The preceding
    few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
  • Keep. Seems interesting and notable. Nssdfdsfds 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While we will need to keep an eye on it this article should be retained. Serin has been quite widely covered in the media and his activities do illustrate the machinations that go on in housing markets all rouund the world. By choosing to publicise his own problems Serin has moved in to the public arena and a factual article about him is warranted. Lisiate 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll change my vote to Keep, but monitor closely for policy violations. While this article has been greatly improved since it went up for deletion, it's still primarily sourced from blogs and needs more attention. Several editors here and on the article's talk page argue that this is permissible because Serin's own words indict or condemn him; I disagree. Let Serin's words convict him on his own blog, and include only those facts which can be substantiated by reliable third-party sources in the article. Saranary 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand, the article on Baron Munchausen does not uncritically accept his stories of his own adventures as fact. We need to keep the reliability of the narrator in mind here, especially as previous contributors to this article have suggested that Serin may exaggerate his financial woes or bait his audience for additional publicity. Saranary 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guy has appeared in multiple media outlets. His blog receives several thousand visits a day according to sitemeter. The article is a definite "Keep". johndowning 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like Casey Serin is going to be discussed on "ABC News, Suze Orman and PBS Money Track with Jack Gallagher" soon. Would be nice for such a public figure to have a Wikipedia entry. DaveEnglish 16:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There may be a precedent in the AfD discussion for Jason Fortuny. The article had BLP issues similar to the version of Casey Serin that was nominated for deletion -- speculation on Fortuny's mental illness, gossip about his childhood and college career, and inclusion of personal details like contact information and family members' names. Like the current version of Casey Serin, it mostly used blogposts for sources. Jason Fortuny was initially deleted, and then merged with Internet privacy. 129.186.205.84 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Fortuny had admitted to a great number of embarrassing and possibly illegal activities in his own livejournal, and these were quoted in the Wikipedia article. Ultimately the consensus was that Fortuny's livejournal was not a reliable source.129.186.205.84 20:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Project Quicksilver

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

Original Research.

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

I also oppose merging into

WP:NOR will still apply. I also oppose any redirect - this has been attempted several times by various other editors, but the redirects have always been removed, and probably will again. Saikokira 02:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge an extremely small summary (perhaps 2-4 paragraphs) into the show's main article. As I suggested on the article's talk page long ago, the whole thing is just too
    out-of-universe perspective. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Peter Wojtowicz

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

No assertion of notability. No references, inappopriate tone, prod removed by anon. If consensus to delete, note ton of redirects...  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nonnotable, self-promotional, no independent sources. NawlinWiki 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. A Google search turns up this wikipedia article as the only relevant hit. A search on Amazon does not turn up any of his books, and indeed no publishers are listed for his books, making their existence impossible to verify. He does have 221 friends on Myspace, however. SkipSmith 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Self advertisement that is also non-notable. No reliable sources either... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, self-promotion, unverifiable. Terence 06:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along with related redirects.--ZayZayEM 07:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, no references, delete also redirects. Visor 08:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. Autobiographical - Alison☺ 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, is anyone actually going to decide to search "Peter Wojtowic"? It's not a notable subject, and is also unreferenced. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 19:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable. —dima/s-ko/ 22:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NawlinWiki said it best. Realkyhick 23:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Wizardman 17:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas H. Welch

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

Nonnotable musician, given sources do not establish notability per

WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki 03:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Strong delete. 1) Somebody's myspace page is not a reputable source, 2) The coroner's link is to the coroner's office home page, not to the report on Welch. Even if the report says what the article claims, that means that only two lines of the whole article are sourced by that, 3) The Shreveport Times link is to the obituaries. Obituaries of non-public figures say (for the most part) what the family wants them to say; they are not reliably fact-checked, and most importantly 4) even if the sourcing of this article were perfect in every respect . . . this person is NOT notable. Mwelch 19:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, and the sources add nothing except a date of death. And Wikipedia is not a place for memorials. Realkyhick 23:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Pre-Modern Japanese Studies Mailing List

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

Mailing list that doesn't seem to be notable. Googling the title, I only get 17 unique google hits, which includes several Wikipedia-related hits. It really doesn't seem like this meets

WP:ATT, as the only sources available seem to be primary and no secondary sources. I don't really see what makes this anymore notable than any other arbitrary mailing list, claiming 650 members in the article, which doesn't seem like a lot to me. Delete as such. Wickethewok 03:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Weak keep. Cbrown1023 talk 01:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberathlete Amateur League

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

Does not meet

notability. Leuko 04:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment The initial purpose seems like a desire to explain that CPL/CAL are both different entities except now CPL owns a financial stake in CAL. Any suggestions to salvage or should it be merged wtih
    TheCPL as suggested above? ZBrannigan 19:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep as a notable entity. --Habap 16:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as CPL and CAL are separate entities. Both are notable individually. -- Laurens Hoek 15:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you two mind explaining why you think this is notable? TJ Spyke 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • CAL is the largest online gaming league in North America, with thousands of members. This is reason enough, I guess ;-). -- Laurens Hoek 01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seperate articles. Notability is given, reliable sources exist... Merging shouldnt happen as CPL is already over the recommended article size.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Frank Nuccio

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

Non-notable biography, does not meet

WP:BIO, contested A7 speedy. Leuko 04:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

comment: doesn't have any real references through the article just a bunch of links at the end which I suspect (not verified) may be mostly 1st party related. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by FR Soliloquy (talk • contribs) 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Josh Fox(Santa Cruz)

Josh Fox(Santa Cruz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Designer Whey Protein

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

"Advertisement masquerading as an article". The "article" does not establish notability other than it being a brand of whey protein, and the information used to asert notability is unsourced, or is simply an advertising slogan used by the manufacturer itself about it's own product. This advertisment has two product images - one that is only weakly related to the main article topic; and two corporate links - to a company that does not have a Wikipedia article. Much of the information is

reliable source quoted in this article at all. Note that no other brand of whey protein has it's own Wikipedia entry - despite there being about 40 other brands on the market. The non-corporate links that have been included in this advertisement are general whey protein links and can be transferred over to the main whey protein article once it's deleted. Quartet 04:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Alan Darley

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

I came across this as an orphan page. This appears to be a hoax, subject gets no ghits and creators hx is of minor vandalism with this being a step up. It was rather plausible until the last sentence though. killing sparrows 05:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 08:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Testate amoebae

Looks copy and pasted. Plagiarism? Mrmoocow 05:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not sure where the text comes from, but the article topic is 100 percent legit. I'll try a rewrite. YechielMan 06:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs a rewrite. Terence 08:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - not a copyvio. MER-C 09:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now cleaned up by User:YechielMan. Definitely worthy of an article. Will (aka Wimt) 09:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I am going to remove it from the AfD's it is unanimous.
  • Keep. I was entirely unaware that it was possible for an amoeba to execute a last will and testament. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is "looks copy and pasted" a legitimate delete reason? If it's a copyvio, then show us from where. Ron Ritzman 23:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't find an online source that would pose a copyvio problem. Looks legit, though I'm hardly an expert on the topic. Realkyhick 23:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

CrimeLine

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

A website/newsletter that doesn't seem to have been subject of a secondary article. It doesn't seem to meet

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

  • I've modified to statement based on your points. I'm curious, is CrimeLine at least a major criminal justice newsletter in Great Britain ?
    MadMax 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Lack of third party coverage. --RaiderAspect 10:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Maybe it has more notability in the UK than I realize (realise?), but for now it seems weak on notability. Realkyhick 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A mention in a footnote in a memorandum to a select committee does not constitute Notability. NBeale 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in the article establishes notability. Lack of third-party reliable sources and references. utcursch | talk 06:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Andrew Mears

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

Non-notable - alot of ghits on the name but none seem related to this guy.

WP:NN. I think this is part of a series of self-promotional pages. Peter Rehse 05:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 08:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

James Rudy

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

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

Delete per
TedFrank 05:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I do too. I was in the middle of asking for improvements when another editor had posted a prod, which was subsequently removed by a third editor. This was a procedural listing as per this direction on contested prods. I have given then third editor guidance on his anonymous user talk page about how to improve this article. Sancho (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I strongly suspect the anon is the original creator, you may want to also leave a note on the original creator's page. --
TedFrank 05:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Good call... I'll do it. Sancho (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    Tikiwont 13:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Heckuva lot of clumsy extraneous detail and work for a hoax, but I agree with the ultimate result. --
TedFrank 13:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. Wickethewok 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mezangelle

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

Constructed language that doesn't seem to meet

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

  • Delete as unverified and unnotable. How in god's name did it survive the first AFD? --RaiderAspect 10:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the same reason that it should survive this one: This language is documented in quite a number of books, papers, and articles on culture, such as (for examples) pages 248–249 of ISBN 1741140153, page 205 of ISBN 3211238719, this paper, this paper, this paper (albeit briefly), and this paper. (This paper documents code poetry in general, and mentions Mezangelle.) The subject is verifiable, and notable as demonstrated by it being documented with more than a passing mention by a fair number of reliable sources that are independent of Mary-Anne Breeze and of each other. I don't know how the nominator managed to miss all of these reliable sources. Some of them were even mentioned in the previous AFD discussion. Keep. Uncle G 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - The Fisher article (part3) has two paragraphs on it, the other online papers seem to be single sentence mentions (note that the Hayles link is broken and I don't have access to the book, so I can't attest to the extent that it is covered in those sources). I admit I'm on the fence-ish, so if anyone has access to and can remark on what is in the print source, that'd be helpful. Wickethewok 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Cramer paper is more than a single sentence mention. The Hayles paper is, too. (The broken hyperlink was thanks to Google's cache. I've fixed it.) Uncle G 22:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe someone could add proper ref tags for those sources above? Then probably keep. Kopf1988 22:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As it stands the articles is neither sourced, nor does it state why the language is notable. Those things need to be fixed if you want it kept. --RaiderAspect 05:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and due rewrite There seems to be a tiny amount of notability in the topic, but the article lacks sources.--Sefringle 07:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I agree it needs a rewrite as well as more sources, I do believe it deserves its own article, unless it can be combined elsewhere. Until then, I say it should be kept. --Atrivedi 04:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. I've plunked his sources into their own little section of the article, but (to pass the buck along again) "someone" needs to read them all, edit the article according to the information gleaned from the sources, and properly reference all the statements in the article (turning the "Sources" section into a proper "References" section along the way). Send to Cleanup now, I guess. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Keep per reasonable suggestions to change the article rather than half-formed "editor" opinions based on lack of referral to the 1st AFD discussion or [surprising easily accessible?] sources available. I'm gradually expanding/rewriting the article while wading through the sources. Not keen on buck-passing myself;). --A smithee 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mez is a well-known & ground-breaking net artist/linguist whose work is widely discussed in established online communities; see http://www.hotkey.net.au/%7enetwurker/resume2d.htm for interviews, reviews & her bibliography. this entry should definitely not be deleted!!! Frock 04:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This AfD is not about the article on mez. It's about the article on the language she invented. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Jukka44 04:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mez is well know in net.art circles, and is prominent in the new media / media arts communitymmorphe 07:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eesh, if there are going to be SPAs, they could at least discuss the article in question. ^^What Carolfrog said above. Wickethewok 08:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or attach to the article Mez. mez' mezangelle is a canonical subject in electronic literature criticism (N. Katherine Hayles, Rita Raley and others). It is odd that Wikipedia wants to delete this article while it keeps countless articles on b- or c-level porn actors, for example. cantsin 15:54, 20 March 2007
  • Keep -- I've enjoyed the work of Mez for about nine years through seminal and influential online poetics communities. Mez to my understanding is a virtual construction and, as such, directly and critically engages with core issues at the intersection of internet culture, identity, and poetics. To question the legitimacy of Mez is to question the legitimacy of art itself. Of course such questioning comes naturally to many but I hope and pray we are not led by the many when the many choose to appeal solely to idiocy and ignorance within each of us. I've seen some nastiness wrt to poetics and poets before in the wikipedia community and I'm frankly tired of it. Go back to editing the Jenna Jameson entry. Textminer 17:57 20 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. We don't really have a quorum here, but not a single voice was raised for Keep, and notability is not established in the article. Herostratus 13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-Style

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

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

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

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

Community Education Development Association

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

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

Comment The fact that its an NGO isnt disputed I suppose. There is the question of notablity, neutrality and its encyclopedi-ness. --Oblivious 05:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Weak assertion of notability. Fails
    WP:COI. Vegaswikian 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g1, totally unverified nonsense bio. NawlinWiki 15:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alia Eckhard

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

Person sounds only marginally notable (child of celeb) with an intriguing but completely uncited story. No ghits for "alia eckhard" or "alia d eckhard", so I'm tempted to call shenanigans. DMacks 07:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 09:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

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

Not sure, but if Steve Pavlina was removed, maybe this one fails the notability criterias too. --Taraborn 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep merge had previously been discussed and opposed, Transwiki is an option if its followed through then nominate again. Gnangarra 07:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Canticle for Leibowitz Latin translations

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

Listcruft, fancruft. At the least merge with A Canticle for Leibowitz Latin translations. Quentin Smith 08:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with itself.....? ChrisTheDude 08:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep...the book is a science fiction classic, and this list could actually enhance a reader's appreciation. Merge might be the way to go. Rhinoracer 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an SF classic yes but this is clearly
    indiscriminate information. The weblink that this is from (http://www.loyno.edu/~gerlich/315Canticle.html) can be used as an external link the the A Canticle for Leibowitz article if needed. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - a good resource for understanding an SF classic. It is ancillary to the main article
    Lord of the Rings can have ancillary articles like Gandalf, then surely CfL can have an ancillary article too. As to the charge of listcruft, this is not a list just for the sake of a list, but a provider of valuable information to those who do not read Latin. Rwflammang 11:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote. A Canticle for Leibowitz is certainly a notable book, and these translations seem to be a worthy assist to its readers, and explain the allusions being made. Still, this is a list of quotations, not really an encyclopedia article, and this article has somewhat fewer ambitions than, say, a guide to Finnegans Wake. (I would recommend keep though, if the translations and explanations of the allusions would be lost because of too zealous reformatting to conform to standard templates in Wikiquote.) - Smerdis of Tlön 14:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge. I've thought about this, and re-read the A Canticle for Leibowitz article. It could well benefit from the inclusion of this list. Make it so!
  • Further thinking leads me to conclude that the characterisation of this article as 'fancruft' and 'listcruft' was deliberately insulting and/or callous. Let's put it down to a bad day for User:Quentin Smith. Rhinoracer 22:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this is just the kind of thing people come to Wikipedia for! I can't see why it's in table format though; perhaps that could be changed to make the phrases and their accompanying explanations more readable> Heian-794 16:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The Wild II

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

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

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


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

  • Delete. All Google hits are about the comet. Editing Maniac 17:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and ban the user who created it. He is almost without doubt another sockpuppet of User:Lyle123. He's been creating articles like this for several months now, and he (under his sockpuppets) created this hoax article the last two times. He removed the deletion tag from the page, by the way; I've put it back up. Esn 01:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this user (under another nickname) has created another hoax article. I've put it up for deletion over here. Esn 10:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the sockpuppet template to that IP... adding it to the long list. Esn 23:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to add a vote to salt the article once it is deleted. If any info ever emerges that a sequel is actually being made, a request can be made to unsalt it through the appropriate channels. As of now, this article has a very high chance of being recreated by another Lyle123 sockpuppet within a short time after its deletion. Esn 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close - this is articles for deletion, not merging. See

WP:MERGE for more info on merging. MER-C 11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Yen carry trade

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

Should be merged with

Suicup 09:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

San Luis Rey Handicap

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

This is a grade 2 race with very little media coverage.

talk 12:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • edit - The race is legitimate, and is linked off the Santa Anita entry. I'll see if I can find recent winners to match it with the other races listed.

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

I agree
Manik Raina 09:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 09:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Todd Rixon

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

Unreferenced and not encyclopedic. Fails

WP:BIO. --Longhair\talk 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was the article to be extinct - deleted. -

Mailer Diablo 09:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Extinct animals in popular culture

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

This article is effectively a list that attempts to chronicle the appearance of all extinct species in popular culture, ie. a collection indiscriminate information (WP:NOT). There are hundreds of thousands of extinct species (most of the current content are prehistoric - and could probably be merged into

Dinosaurs in popular culture), so this list could never be complete (WP:LIST). Delete --Peta 11:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Please log in before voting.--JyriL talk 21:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -

Mailer Diablo 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Dmitry Puchkov

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

The article doesn't meet the notability requirement for biographies (

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

Keep - Are you saying that only Russian-speakers should know about these things? Is it not the purpose of Wikipedia to inform people of things they may not know? Chronolegion 12:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I didn't phrase the reasons clearly. The main problem with the article is that it does not meet the notability requirements specified in
WP:BIO. The Russian references comment's purpose is to demonstrate this. Faustus 12:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlentyofFish

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

The result was Speedy deleted by

FCYTravis. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Rahib

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

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

  • Delete as nominator. Neier 12:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as a hoax. No evidence for the existence of such a beast. Not listed on the IUCN database [16] -- Whpq 15:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. —Celithemis 23:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete clearly a hoax. No ghits on supposed scientific name other than this article. NBeale 06:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax.Hondasaregood 22:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Wintana

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

Google for 'Wintana Eritrea princess' shows nothing KeithD 12:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 09:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Janet Elizabeth Shearon

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

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

  • Delete - no notability. Information about her related to Niel Armstrong is already in that article. -- Whpq 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single instance of notability. Redirect to Neil Armstrong. UnfriendlyFire 01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails Notability. Daniel5127 | Talk 02:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree, not notable. Redirect toNeil Armstrong--Slp1 13:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

Veinor (talk to me) 13:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Liz Stewart

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

Not notable. Does not pass

WP:BIO as she has not been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Epbr123 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 22:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-skinheads

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

This article was already deleted through the appropriate Wikipedia procedures and merely re-created using an old version of the article. Although anarchist skinheads do exist, the term anarcho-skinheads is not used, and they are not considered a distinct and separate category. There are no references, and all of the content was duplicated from the

RASH, Redskin (subculture) and Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice articles. Spylab 14:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

  • Comment - If this is truely recreated material, then it would qualify for speedy deletion. When I removed the PROD notice due to the objection on the talk page, I looked for a previous AFD, but did not find one. (It could easily have been AFDed under a different name.) If you know where this was previously deleted and could show a link to it, particularly to a previous AFD, then this could potentially be speedied, saving the trouble of waiting out the AFD time. - TexasAndroid 15:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found it at Anarcho-Skinhead. It was deleted by PROD back in December. Unfortuneately, PROD deletions set no precedence for recreation. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions only. A single protest, before or after deletion, and it's no longer uncontroversial. PRODed articles have no prohibition against recreation either, as recreation can be considered a protest against the deletion. Given all that, this will need to proceed through this AFD to the end if it is to establish that it really should not exist on the project. - TexasAndroid 16:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails
    Arkyan 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete No sources, fails
    RASH articles suggests it's a neologism, Pete.Hurd 23:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep and due rewrite It is a notable topic, but this version is horribly written.--Sefringle 04:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the year or so that I've known about this article (in its various forms), there has been no improvements at all, other than by deleting junk that didn't belong. The chances of someone rewriting it to meet encyclopedic standards is next to nil. The article should be deleted, and if people actually come along with references and can rewrite it properly, they can contact a Wikipedia administrator and state their case. And again, even though anarchist skinheads exist, neither they, nor others call them anarcho-skinheads, and they are not considered a distinct and separate subculture. The topic overlaps with other skinhead-related articles on Wikipedia. Spylab 10:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close - Redirects are Cheap®. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bram Stoker´s Dracula (pinball)

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

This page has been duplicated into another similar (Bram Stoker's Dracula (pinball)).) David Pro 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Duplicate pages is not allowed.--David Pro 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - It's a possible typo so a redirect is appropriate. Redirects are cheap. I've boldly made the change. -- Whpq 16:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

City of Caterpillar

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

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

Chris 06:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to

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

Florida Black Racer

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

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

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

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

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

  • Speedy Keep but rename to Black Racer and generalize. Too many google hits from too many reliable sources (umass biology dept., etc.) for this to be a hoax article. Existing article in desperate need of wikification and new author apparently needs help. Irene Ringworm 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

  • Keep or Merge? - I hope the original author is not discouraged by this incident. Even though an article is nominated for deletion, it is by no means deleted. It is unforntunat that the nominator didn't cite the article as unreferenced to provide a chance for addiotonal supporting information to be added by other editors. A quick look around brings up
    Coluber constrictor priapus which is the southern black racer. From what I can glean, this may be the same snake, but I'm not a herpetologist, and would defer to experts whether a keep or merge is in order. -- Whpq 16:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - Richard Cavell 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Summer (band)

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

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

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

  • Keep for now. Although I'm a bit disappointed to see no references cited in the article, a Google search reveals lots and lots of hits (I searched for "Indian Summer" screamo and that seemed to work ok). Article does need work, but I say keep for now. - grubber 17:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep if it could be cleaned up by someone who has heard of the band. Suriel1981 13:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do google hits count as a criteria?Hoponpop69 18:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

PlentyofFish

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

WP:WEB angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 12:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep Ranked 704 on Alexa --DrewSears 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any valid reason why this should be deleted? Crell 18 March 2007
  • Keep - Important in its field as a popular (esp in Canada) and free personal service. Has notability, too. I added a bit to the talk page some time ago for incorporation as appropriate. --Justanother 04:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 09:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Ska Boys

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

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

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

  • Strong Delete NN --Evergreens78 19:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - fails to establish notability, article admits they only had three shows total. Dismas|(talk) 20:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, how sad. The article does a great job establishing that they were not notable in the least. --DrewSears 21:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A very funny article which bizaarely writes it's own nomination! Suriel1981 13:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to recap: the band did THREE live shows and got booed off stage on the first two. The third show was held in a PUB. This might be worth nominating for
WP:BJAODN for the humour factor. Suriel1981 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 09:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Tim Jonze

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

One line entry giving no details of work etc and no indication of notability Iridescenti 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stupid.com

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

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

The article looks like it's about a completely nonnotable site with a few fans. I'm not convinced by the 100k Google hits, nor by the fact that CNN mentioned it once last year acc. to the previous AfD (I wasn't able to confirm this). In short, it fails

WP:WEB YechielMan 20:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC) A Train take the 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 09:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of fictional left-handed characters

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

Simply put, this is trivia, failing

WP:NOR. (There was no consensus in a nomination two months ago, here) >Radiant< 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 09:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of fictional nerds

Like the recently-deleted fictional bullies, this category is not objectively defined and boils down to "fictional characters that are intelligent and socially awkward as compared to other characters in the same series". >Radiant< 14:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 01:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic MUD

Nice article, but appears to be (self?-) promotion of a rather unknown MUD (of which there are thousands). Lacks any evidence of external review, sources, importance, etc. >Radiant< 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, I guess. Not an easy one, and the problem that other users haved edited the article (which excludes it from

Daniel Bryant 04:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Bojan Pavlovic

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

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

  • In the absence of any indication that this person passes either
    WP:BLP - "do no harm". Only circa 600 ghits anyway, and being shortlisted for an award that seems designed to reward those of little encyclopedic notability hardly confers encyclopedic notability. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I am the author in question and absolutely agree. This entry was posted after my first novel was published last year to probably increase awareness by agency and to make my profile "googleable." I think having one novel out is far from qualifiying me as ecyclopaedia worthy... Maybe in 20-30 years, however, the that will change ;-) Thanks. BPavlovic 16 March 2007
The verdict is delete. BPavlovic Can someone do it? You don't decide what the verdict is;
Daniel Bryant 04:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 09:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Live Free or Die (cellular automaton)

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

Contested prod from February 22. Prod text was: Appears to be

notability must be cited. Ginkgo100 removed the prod without explanation and without providing any additional sourcing per request of Lordmetroid. —David Eppstein 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC) David Eppstein 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom. —Ruud 19:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DavidCBryant 00:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Conway's Game of Life. It seems to be the same principle but I'm not sure if all the rules are the same. It needs the attention of a specialist. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 15:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't feel that this is the correct merge location, if any merge is to take place. Rules similar to Conway's Life have been split off from that article to Life-like cellular automaton. But that article only lists rules that have been documented elsewhere. There are 218 possible rules of this type, so it is not reasonable to list them all; there has to be a reason for listing one. —David Eppstein 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to

Gravitation. Cbrown1023 talk 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Gravitational attraction

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

This article used to be a redirect to

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

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

"we first define the mass as the inertia of the object, which we measure by applying known forces and measuring the acceleration. Then we measure the attraction due to gravitation, for example, by weighing, and compare the results." (emphasis mine).Flying fish 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to gravitation --EMS | Talk 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to gravitation Current article has many serious problems. It claims to be partly about the history/interpretation of gravity, but what it says is wrong and is not anchored in history. It then attempts a weak-field approximation to regain Newton's laws, and the derivation is just plain wrong. linas 17:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • question to linas Don't you agree with Landau that total energy E doesn't change with the change of position of particle (and so there isn't any
    gravitational attraction involved in the movement of the particle)? Jim 09:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • comment The
    Newtonian physics and non relativistic classical mechanics that the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy of the particle is constant. In relativistic physics since the energy of the free falling particle doesn't change despite its changing kinetic energy (see Landau) there is no need for an assumption of any "gravitational attractive force" nor any "potential energy". That's why we say now that Einstein eliminated "gravitational attractive force" form physics. Jim 15:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • comment - What do you mean You did not write "kinetic energy" above? I just started my last comment from The kinetic energy of the particle .... When I write "kinetic energy" I mean "kinetic energy", when I write "total energy" I mean "total energy". While the idea of "kinetic energy" is almost the same in Newtonian and relativistic physics, the idea of "total energy" is obviously different in relativity since in Newtonian physics it used to be "kinetic energy" plus "potential energy", the latter being usually "negative". The "potential energy" lost its meaning in relativity where "total energy" is . Could you explain more clearly what you mean by "keeps the kinetic energy constant in general relativity" since in relativity the total energy is constant. The "kinetic energy" isn't constant in neither physics unless in the reference frame of the free falling particle when it is a trivial zero. Jim 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Interesting goof on my part, as you are correct that Newtonian physics lack any rest energy, and kinetic energy does not include that. My point remains that energy is conserved (locally) in any case. More important is that your question to linas can only be valid if potential energy is excluded, but there was nothing in the question to make that clear. You keep approaching things from your own perculiar POV, and have no respect for the knowledge base or the needs of others. More specifically to this case, you seem to think that the
    gravitational attraction article should be a pro-GR rant instead of an informative review of the topic itself. --EMS | Talk 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • additional comment - You seem to be one of the guys on the other side of the issue who understands the issue. So you might be able to turn the whole consensus from 9:1 (as it stands now) to 0:10 (as it should be if everybody understood clearly what the issue is). So I should probably explain the issue more clearly. But I had a feeling that I did it already in the "gravitational attraction" page and no one was interested enough to read it all. So if we could discuss, after reading the page, what are the real objections (not just "troll Jim pushing again his POV") I'd have an opportunity to clarify them and explain while in this case Jim's POV is also POV of the hard science that is taught in all universieties around the world, unfortunately only to graduate physics students. And I'd like it to be taught to high school students as well since they are perfectly well capable of understanding this hard science POV, when it is properly explained to them. So if I make dydactical errors, as you seem to suggest, please point thosse errors to me and we may clarify them. One isse that you pointed to already is "
    total energy". However I also modified this page to fit the contemporary state of affairs and it was reverted to some non invariant nonsens as well. So I just concentrate on the most important issue in my opinion, which is the faith in gravitational attraction. This faith has persisted already for over 300 years, and it is outdated for almost 100 years, but despite that it is taught to high school students around the world, as good enough for them. Which then it has all the features of a state religion (in this case even a world religion). It is tauht with a hope that when those students are interested in the truth then they may study physics and learn in due time what the truth is. Apparently they never do as it is shown by this consensus of educated people, most likely graduated from many high schools, and some even graduate students in physics at Harvard University. Jim 09:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to gravitation —Ruud 19:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Any reason for redirection? Jim 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to gravitation —Flying fish 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Just seeing the statement in the first sentence that "gravitational attraction is a myth" was enough to convince me that this is an example of someone pushing their own (probably nearly unique) POV. The inverse square law holds in everyday life, and is a great approximation to nature at the energies and in the fields that humans are accustomed to. As others have pointed out, the fact that you don't fly off into space is evidence that "something" is pulling you down. Whether that something is some kind of inverse square law, or quantum gravity, or the result of some field equations doesn't matter, in ordinary human life we observe that we are attracted to the Earth. Arguments about what general relativity means should take place on GR pages, not on a page designed to attack the normal understanding of gravitation. As a final point, consider someone creating a page called "Earth's Geography" and stating in the lead sentence that "the idea that the Earth is round is a myth. It's actually a bumpy elipsoid". Even if the point is true it's badly representing the normal person's worldview.[reply]
  • comment - Your example with a round Earth is about approximation while sentence about gravitational attraction is about something not existing at all. It seems that almost a century after the gravitational attraction disppeared from physics the high school students might finally start reading encyclopedia's articles that tell them the same thing that physics students learn in their gravitation courses and to learn how gravitation really works instead of believing a nearly century old story. Jim 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Science is about approximation and model building. The model of 1/r**2 attraction works very well (wihthin measurement uncertainties) for almost everything everyone does. Should we change the first sentence of "proton" to "The existance of protons is a myth! In reality the proton is a bound state of three quarks of individual color". (Of course in perturbative field theory "quarks" don't exist either, they're just excitations out of the vacuum, so one can go even further...) We teach high school physics students about friction - but "friction is a myth"! It's really an integral of electromagnetic interactions between atoms (uh oh) on each of the adjacent surfaces.
Models are used constantly in physics. Condensed matter physicists talk about "depletion forces" (really electromagnetic), electronics designers talk about the AC current through a capacitor (electrons don't actually flow), we even talk about electrons "flowing" even though individual electrons bounce all over the place in the wire, and don't really go in orderly circles through the loop. The model of gravitational attraction due a to 1/r**2 force is an exceedingly good model for everyday life, is VERY important in the history physics, and is a great teaching tool. If you want people to learn about general relativity then include a link to it on
Gravitation (I assume it's there already), and mention that the 1/r**2 force law represents the old way of thinking about it. Done.Flying fish 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
An example of backfiring of noble purpose might be very recent decision by Polish Government (one of the few Governments that helps us to win the
Ninja Turtles
for their gear, made a spectacular arrest at the hospital for patients to enjoy. However the noble idea of creating a "perfect tool" for improving hospital statistics backfired by refusal of some Polish doctors to perform surgeries, which the Government didn't foreseen. They meant well and yet the bad doctors turned the best intentions into a disaster for Polish people who now have difficulties with having surgeries since 20 years in jail is too big a risk for those cowardly doctors. Unfortunately there is no death penelty in Poland so 20 years for assasination is max the governmant can afford but the Government is working on improving Polish Constitution that would be more like in Texas. So soon if a patient dies so does his doctor. Apparently, Polish Government might assume that it "is an exceedingly good model for everyday life, [...] and is a great teaching tool" to teach doctors.
To warn anybody who might not know, to call the Polish President, Mr. Kaczynski (don't mix him with this twin brother who looks exactly the same but is a
Polish Jokes please. Except possibly something like "Jim himself is a polish joke", which might be justified because of not folowing Feynman's advice. Jim 14:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Even if you try to think everything over in every detail they always manage to screw up something and then they tell you "you said it yourself". And then your only defense is "well, I lied, since I thought that you are idiots and can't bear the truth since it might blow your minds". And this is a very weak defense. So if you can document the fact that three quarks together is a myth, say it. It is BTW what Feynman always did. When he knew that something isn't true he said so and then he explained what model we may use to work with it anyway. Because science is not about models, as you say, but suprizingly enough it is abobut finding what is false. Which can be done in all relevant cases through experiments. That's why we already know, and are sure of, a lot of myth. By an important epistemological rule we can find what is true only when it is just oposite to a myth that we already proved false. And unfortunately there are many possible things opposite to a given myth. That's why to find truth is so difficult but luckily not impossible in principle.
One of my professors who taught magnetism always started his lectures by saying: "Whatever I'll tell you isn't true. It is simplified to make it easier for you to calculate certain things and understand what you can't calculate with those methods and why". And so the students were warned that Maxwell Equations are only approximation and could accept the rest and become better physicists than those who believed in Maxwell Equations and thought that magnetic force can exists on its own (you just add one term to Maxwell...) and were looking for "
gravitational force") might be a myth. Jim 16:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • comment Science is not the search for truth. There are no certitudes in science, only theories and models. Further, since you mentioned Feynman let me quote from page 3 of the Feynman lectures on gravitation: "First of all there is the fact that the attraction follows an inverse-square law... Then there is the fact that the force is proportional to the masses of the objects." Then later on the same page: "we first define the mass as the inertia of the object, which we measure by applying known forces and measuring the acceleration. Then we measure the attraction due to gravitation, for example, by weighing, and compare the results." (emphasis mine). I think this ought to settle this matter.Flying fish 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • response - You say "Science is not the search for truth", making an impression that maybe I said that it is. I said: "science is [...] about finding what is false". Of course finding what is false is not the same as the search for truth since as you agreed there are no certitudes in science. So we agree on this point. Then as it turns out we agree also on a point that The inverse square law holds in everyday life, and is a great approximation to nature ... which you said yourself. So your example with Feynman is about a model that Feynamn explains and which is an approximation to nature. It is all independent of what Einstein discovered, since as Feynman says in section 7-8 (Gravity and relativity) of The Fenman lectures on physics "In spite of all the excitement it created, Newton's law of gravitation is not correct!" (exclamation is Feynman's). Now my POV is that we shouldn't present to high school students something about which we already know that it is false, which contrary to truth can be discovered by science and it's even the purpose of science to find what is false. Because we don't want to live in the world of illusions as lived the people of
    Newtonian gravitation claerly is as Feynman confirms. We differ then only in POV on the educational policy. The education of most people taking part in this debate is an evidence that the present policy on teaching gravitation starting from Newton's theory is wrong. IMO it should start from stating clearly that there is no such thing as gravitational attraction, how it is simulated (which as you can see from the disputed page, thanks to Landau, takes less than 45 minutes to explain) and only then, when students comprehend the physics of the real world, explaining how simpy we can solve problems involving gravitation with Newton's equations. Otherwise we create mentally challenged individuals who might believe that the real world can't be understood. And later in life have problems with explaining many cosmological puzzles since faith in gravitational attraction affects their clear judgment. Jim 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • comment Any reason for redirection? Jim 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to gravitation the first sentence does it. there's an insightful quote (perhaps physicists could tell me from whom, is it the relativist Singe?) that goes something like "In GR gravity is part of the stage while, in Newton's theory, it is an actor." IMHO, this article looks like a badly erroneous interpretation of that quote. Mct mht 13:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to gravitation, obviously, and beware of further disruption from JimJast. Tim Shuba 22:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - JimJast is referring to other editors as vandals in a similar though less egregious content dispute. [24][25] Tim Shuba 00:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - according to Wikipedia, blanking someone else's page (which Tim Shuba did) is vandalism. If you don't like the page because it contradicts your particular POV, to proceed in a civilized manner, you should state your offended POV first and then if not satisfied by the response, to request the deletion of the page. E.g. I don't understand why you consider Newtonian physics and relativity (contained in classical mechanics) being the same. Unless you never heard about relativity being different than Newtonian physics, but even then it is not a good reason for blanking a page. Jim 15:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as it is since high school students shouldn't be fed majority opinion but they should be told what physicists (and apparently not many of them have time to edit Wikipedia) consider to be a true story. "Two masses do not attract each other, period." (
    Newtonian physics. Jim 23:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to gravitation. The article is very problematic:
1. It doesn't make any sense that people who want to read about the gravitational force would need to understand general relativity first. It would be a very non-standard pedagogical approach.
comment Apparently this non standard pedagogical approach is urgently needed since relativity is around already for about a century and as demonstratef by this voting list a lot of intelligent people still don't understand it and some don't even know the simplest things about it. Jim 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. The article includes many mistakes. For example, the text claims that gravitational force exists when the body "is prevented from its free movement" and that it doesn't exist when the body is free to move. With or without general relativity, this statement is wrong.
comment This POV is wrong according to your POV but it is right according to POV of any textbook on general relativity. So to be fair you might say that opinions are divided, and yours aren't supported by any relible source yet since reliable sources support general relativity's POV. Even the autors that you quoted in discussion with me admit that they don't know yet how to prove their POV so they say that existence of attractive force is just their hypothesis. General relativity's POV, on the other hand, has been confirmed by all experiments up to date. Which makes pretty clear choice for Wikipedia. Jim 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. The main claim of the article that "gravitational attraction is a myth" isn't the only existing interpretation of Einstein's equations, and maybe not even the dominant one. I tried to fix the article, included a reference to a textbook, provided additional discussion and references on Talk:Gravitational attraction, but User:JimJast reverted the changes and removed the reference, violating many Wikipedia policies just in order to keep his POV as the only way to look at the subject. The whole article has a very POV-ish style. It seems like it's the only reason why User:JimJast created this fork, after his ideas weren't accepted in existing articles on gravitation. Yevgeny Kats 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Wikipedia policy is to promote present knowledge (coming from reliable sources). Presenting stuff that even its authors consider to be hypotheses that are going to be proved sometime in the future is not something that should be necessarily placed in an encyclopedia. It is however proper for page like "other hypohteses" (since they aren't even theories yet, if you understand the difference). Jim 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per EMS et al. above, with special attention paid to Yevgeny Kats's concerns. Anville 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • question Which conerns would you pay this special attention to and why? Jim 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • note for closing admin - Did'ja like reading this one? If you made it all the way through, I for one wouldn't blame you for flipping out and indef blocking everyone involved, and maybe also a few unrelated editors for good measure. Wheee!—The preceding
    insane comment was added by Tim Shuba (talk • contribs
    )
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello Rabbi Studios

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

Non-Notable. Article has already been tagged as an advertisment. Nothing else links to it. The Article has been created by a group of school children - while apparently done with good intent it does not yet warrant inclusion on/in Wikipedia. -- Rehnn83 Talk 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 22:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Monaghan (porn star)

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

Not notable. Epbr123 15:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. -

Mailer Diablo 09:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Ars Technica

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

Does not, in my opinion, assert notability. I came across this page reading its post at

the conflict of interest noticeboard, where someone reported that writers were removing sourced, negative info about the site. Most of the references are from the site itself. delldot talk 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

I think I owe everyone an apology: I didn't realize how notable of a site this was when I nominated it, and I should have done more homework. I think the article needs a lot of work but at this point I'd like to withdraw my nomination. delldot talk 21:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I be the first to say that Apple Fetishism sounds seriously kinky :) But either way, we're after facts here, not POV - Alison☺ 00:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apple fetish sites are non-notable, due to their sheer abundance. DrPizza 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Frankly, with the sheer level of abuse this article takes, I think we'd all be happier if it just went away. —The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by Kennedye (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
    ]
Comment: Kennedye is a forum moderator at Ars, so this comment may be taken as a conflict of interest of the user is indeed the same. Full disclosure: I'm a regular reader and forumite at Ars, so I won't express my opinion on the discussion as a whole. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 01:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anon editors who are only interested in putting negative information into an article, hmm, could they be sockpuppets of someone with a grudge? If the only "meat" you have to offer is bad mouthing the subject, your additions should be being deleted, IMarrogantO. htom 13:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, hello? "Anon editors" weren't the only ones trying to restore the criticism section (a section of similar sort is in the Slashdot article, and doesn't get attacked all the time). In fact, there was maybe only one other "anon" editor besides me that I can remember. And it wasn't bad mouthing. It was sourced criticism, mostly not added by me (though I did try to add sources for those who demanded it). BTW, offtopic, but is that an MST3K nick? I love that episode.--216.227.57.119 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest is not a reason to delete this article. There are thousands upon thousands of people who attempt to manipulate Wikipedia's content for negative reasons. And it's not posting on Slashdot that decide me, but references by numerous other news sources including the Guardian and Zdnet. FrozenPurpleCube 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely responding to the attribution of importance attached with having your articles or summaries of other articles posted on Slashdot.--216.227.57.119 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, say what you will, Slashdot is at least a selective news aggregator, so they do have some value in determining a given source's merits, but as they're not the only site to reference Ars Technica, it's not worth quibbling over. FrozenPurpleCube 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since all the "criticism" was totally retarded (insofar as it was substantially fabricated and consistently unsupported) it was not unreasonable to remove it. Articles about extant web pages are in any case generally worthless; if you want to know what Ars Technica's about, stick the frigging URL into your web browser and take a look. You don't need an "encyclopaedia" entry about it. Articles like this one seem only to cater to those lunatics who believe that if it's not on Wikipedia it doesn't exist. Such articles can only ever be fluff, because there's nothing substantive to say. At least Slashdot is somewhat notable, due to the way it functions as a DoS tool. DrPizza 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A walk through the article's history since April 2005 reveals what its main problem was all along: the propensity of Ars Technica partisans to treat an encyclopedia article as if Wikipedia is a webspace provider. Several NPOV editors have it on their watchlists now, so those few who still try to revert it to its former corrupted condition find their intentions frustrated very quickly. — Athænara ✉ 10:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it probably would have been ideal for delldot to do a bit of research before listing the article for AFD I'm of the opinion it was a fair move. Articles should establish the notability of their topic indepedently of anything else. Articles which fail completely to do so are the ones at fault when they are listed for deletion, not the editors who list them. Editors IMHO should not be expected to do independent research on the subject of an article outside of what is already in the article when listing an article for deletion (even if it is usually wise). This is doubly the case when the article is of a resonable size and has existed for a resonable period of time. If a clearly noteable topic is listed for deletion because the editor was unaware it was a noteable topic because the article failed completely to establish that; it usually has the beneficial effect of making people aware that an article is in dire straits (although this should definitely never be even of slightest consideration in listing an article for deletion). Point being, this is the way wikipedia is supposed to work... Nil Einne 14:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is very notable. mrholybrain's talk 15:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 09:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Richard Ozanne

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

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

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

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 15:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NN person. Dismas|(talk) 16:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : needs a closer check because in a resume on the internet there are claims that he won :
“Oscar Della Arte” Gold Medal Torino 2006, Society of Michelangelo Buanarotti
First Prize, Religious Art (Free Subject), Santamaria della Arte, Torino Italy
First Prize, European Small Works Exhibition, Torino Italy 2005
we should see if someone from Italy or living in Italy can find some second party sources. The first award is notable. no opinion about the other two. AlfPhotoman 23:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable - not a whiff of serious critical attention. If he is notable, then a bottom price of 50 Euros for a 45 minute lesson (per his website) is a bargain indeed ... I don't know the first prize, but I don't think it can make him notable when nothing much else does. Johnbod 03:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete or perhaps stubify to the sentence about the prize, assuming that it can be documented. Nothing else apparently can.DGG 10:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after spending a few days for references, irritated by the Oscar Della Arte, I have discovered that I had confused it with the Michelangelo Buanarotti gold medal that is not awarded anymore. The awards cited are among the hundreds given in Torino alone. No serious critical reviews could be found AlfPhotoman 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect - there is a clear preponderance of 'delete' or 'redirect' rather than 'keep' votes here. Redirects are cheap, and I shall turn this into a redirect rather than deleting outright. - Richard Cavell 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Elementary School

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

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

  • Delete or Redirect to List of elementary schools in ABC Unified School District or some such title. Not every school is notable, elementary schools even less so. Dismas|(talk) 16:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Betaeleven 16:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Almost every entry on teh high school list includes an article. See for example this. Since there appears to be no notability standard for schools and the de facto standard seems to be to make an article for all schools, or at least high schools, I do not see why this specific article should be removed. Also, AFD seems like a dull tool for dealing with the thousands of school entries--to me it would be more productive to draft a school notability rule. Antonrojo 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • High schools are not the same as elementary schools. This is an elementary school. A consensus about high schools in not relevant. Mak (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete and, for that matter, I don't think there is a consensus that all high schools are notable. Many are.
  • commentTThe article & further data in ref (2) gives various statistics showing this is one of the worst performing schools in the district and in the bottom 20% statewide. If it were possible to document notable efforts being made to overcome this, it might be N.DGG 10:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 23:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 09:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Baseball Channel

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

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

  • Comment - This appears to be nearly a done deal, and to be generating a bit of controversy. See this commentary from the S.F. Chronicle. It may be worth holding off on this deletion. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up Comment - There is still no official announcement. MLB previously announced plans for a network in 04, but then abandoned them for a proposed network with Fox, before this DirecTV discussion begun. The NBA and Time Warner announced a joint sports network in 2002, but that didn't materialize either. I feel that there needs to be more concrete info outside of the DirecTV deal before this proposed, yet-unnamed channel should have its own article. Milchama 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baseball Channel. At present this is speculation. If officially announced, the article should be written and appropriate references added. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted for better consensus. Milchama 15:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like this is now a reality. Deleting it is premature, I think. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC
    • I wrote the original story, and the reason I started the page was that in the article mentioned in the link, Larry Stewart mentioned it as if it were fact. As far as I know, neither Stewart nor anyone else at the Los Angeles Times has retracted that part of the story. Even if Stewart is wrong, and MLB has still not announced The Baseball Channel, please give me permission to repost the page, as is, when MLB does announce it. - Desmond Hobson 22:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Baseball Channel to be offered as part of the carrier's basic package, that channel to be launched beginning in 2009." which means it's not there yet and there's not enough information to justify the article at this time.
    On Belay! 23:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak Keep per the source stating "to be launched in 2009". So, it'll remain a stub for 1-2 years ... OK. -- Black Falcon 17:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 2009? A lot can change between now and then.
    WP:NOT a crystal ball. Mangojuicetalk 04:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Greenplum

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

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

Keep. I wouldn't call it spam: GP is fairly well-known within the Postgres community, and they've gotten quite a few mentions in the press (for example, their recent partnership with Sun: [26], [27], etc.). They are probably one of the more notable startups in the data warehousing market (along with Netezza and a few others). "Greenplum" gets ~146,000 Google hits. That said, the current article content is pretty poor -- it could definitely stand to be improved. (Full disclosure: I'm a Postgres developer, but I have never worked for Greenplum.) Neilc 08:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the google hits are press-release type statements but their collaboration with Sun and subsequent adoption of their product have attracted external coverage by a handful of developer journals. Substantial VC investment, agree with the above comment that this is a notable startup in data warehousing market. Irene Ringworm 04:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Tuten

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

NN person, fails

WP:BIO. Dismas|(talk) 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andreu Swasey

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

NN person, fails

WP:BIO. Dismas|(talk) 16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Nuchols

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

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

  • KeepNeutral, apparently she received a Montenegran presidential award. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Received award says who? Which award? I am surprized how can one vote without getting chance to check facts. Let me spell for other lazy voters here: "Emily Nuchols"+montenegro gives Big Fat Zero google hits. `'mikka 21:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No need to get hostile now is there. If you would have checked the article's history you would have seen that I was the person who added most of the references AND noted that a reference for that award was still missing. So much for calling me a lazy editor, thank you very much. We differ in view on how to treat articles like this, so much is clear. I suggest we give the article at least a few days/weeks before outright deleting it. And for stuff like this, Google just might be the worst of ways to check if the statement is correct. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on the article's history (see edits here and here) and a web search, I suspect much of the "notability" of this individual is a
    hoax. -- MarcoTolo 22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong delete Almost completely OR, no attributions except a handful of self published articles that do not establish notability.
    On Belay! 23:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 10:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Father/son pairs with most points in NHL

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

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

Comment: Has the additional (non-)virtue of breaking some wikicodes with its title. --Nlu (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 22:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Suicide Club

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

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

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 10:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Narkas

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

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

  • delete I don't even anything in their website which would be a help for improving the article. Not encyclopedic.DGG 05:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical Camden County, New Jersey municipalities

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

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

  • Delete, and I'd also change my vote if someone could make this bizarre list clear. Clearly some work went into it, and clearly not enough.Noroton 00:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was intended to be a family tree of municipalities in Camden County, New Jersey. Many of these municipalities are now defunct, and I have been working on a project to provide the history of these municipalities, many of which are in Category:Defunct municipalities in New Jersey. I neglected to make the needed changes to this article while I have been doing another run through New Jersey's 566 municipalities, but I promise that I will update this article. Alansohn 01:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real places defunct now or not are notable. Carlossuarez46 01:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability was never challenged. Not all AFDs are about notability. RJFJR 15:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you think the content or context of the article needs improving, mark it so; there is no magic time after wich a clean up tag means it's OK to delete otherwise, albeit confusing or poorly written, encyclopedic material. Carlossuarez46 16:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Recreate/Rewrite - With cleanup and sourced information, this will be a useful article. If it is deleted, it should be recreated properly. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs some work. Specifically, it should mention why those municipalities were merged, split, incorporated, de-incorporated, or whatever their fate was. With expansion, this article could make a good contribution toward the history of the county. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ableism

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

Unsourced. Appeared to be a neologism. Not used a single published legal opinion within the last five years.[28] (state), [29] (federal). Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets the "I've seen this in use before seeing it in Wikipedia" test. The word appears in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2d), which dates it to 1985-1990. As a neologism it seems to have adequate currency, even if lawyers have better taste than to use it. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the topic is notable. This AFD is complaining about the name, not the topic; a bad reason for AFD, a better reason for a renaming proposal. The article doesn't deal with the history of the word and yet is more than a dicdef. -
    AMA) 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. For reasons stated above. --Loremaster 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the ISTIUBSITW test. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Title not in common use and is a loaded inversion of social issues involved. Article does not address topic broadly enough or document it extensively enough to justify an independent article that will make it less likely for readers to find it. Appears to be completely redundant with disability rights article under discrimination series (redirect?). Ashmedai 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What article is that, exactly? -
      AMA) 01:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Appears to be a bad faith nomination, supported by anons with no policy-based objections, just spurious claims about article creator's source of income. -- Merope 01:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DynaMed

DynaMed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
  • Comment Advertising. Critic111 is saying that it's a combination of
    stub article, with non-advertorial text and references to provide information to expand it. I do plan to expand it. It's only been around for a couple days. Leebo T/C 21:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: I've integrated the links into the references. After reading through them, the only reference which may be iffy is the JAMA ref—and that's only because DynaMed is mentioned peripherally rather than as a central topic. Otherwise, all the refs Leebo provided seem just fine to me. -- MarcoTolo 21:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're right, the JAMA article might be better as a "further reading" link for electronic resources rather than to establish the notability of DynaMed. Leebo T/C 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er... nevermind, it looks great the way you laid it out, I hadn't checked. Leebo T/C 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is small. It is not because of its length that it is to be deleted. But such a small (un-informative) article as this, is not needed in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which is informative and contains relevant topics. Topics such as this is not worthy enough to be in Wikipedia. DynaMed is in no way relevant. It appears to me that Leebo here is trying to promote a home company to bring in profits for them. This is not right. Since you are so persistent to promote this company i will soon get you a link to a site that is meant to support only advertisments. You can do what you like there and there will be no one to stop you. Please do not waste WIkipedia space/ user time / your time arguing. I say DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.178.206 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 18 March 2007
  • Comment Above user is slightly correct. I believe that DynaMed does not deserve it's own article. But if you are so persistent i suggest you merge this article with another "significant" article, where it can at least earn some recognition. Critic111 11:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Read Wikipedia:Notability. DynaMed has been featured in numerous industry academic journals. This is more than enough to sustain an article. Leebo T/C 11:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, with no prejudice against a merge. The 'D' in AFD stands for 'deletion', not 'merging'. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Marilyn Monroe

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

Cleanup of incomplete AfD nomination by Rodrigue (talk · contribs). I have no current opinion on the matter. -- Scientizzle 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep as a redirect to

Veinor (talk to me) 13:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

E day

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

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

  • Revert/redirect to initial edit [30]; a redirect to Military designation of days and hours. --Fang Aili talk 17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Speedy delete - patent non-sense. HagenUK 20:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, after the rework (better redirect), this nomination has become obsolete. However, well spotted, Iridescenti !!! HagenUK 19:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment A google search for "E Day" NATO or "E Day" military DOES turn up references to the phrase in this context and not just from mirror sites. I feel the nomination is incorrect on that basis. Suriel1981 12:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The version of this site (as nominated) wasn't the military usage, which is a later change within the last couple of days, but some patent nonsense regarding the number e "E day is celebrated on the 2.71th day of the year" etc. The version of the page as it currently stands is undoubtedly valid. Iridescenti 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. My mistake. I'll give the original vandal an official warning. Suriel1981 16:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. The article has been reverted to a valid redirect version. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

CrazyEyedProductions

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

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

  • Delete non notable, etc.
    On Belay! 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

What a difference a friend makes

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

Violates

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

  • Well, for instance, the whole myths and facts section is a copy/paste most of the same section at this page. Leebo T/C 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, didn't notice you had updated your comment before posting my example. Leebo T/C 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-topical --MarSch 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above and blanked by page creator and only editor. Danski14 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 + · · ·

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

Non-notable geometric series. Not likely to be typed in (why not 2,3, or 5 terms, rather than 4?) {{

prod}} added and removed previously. If the reference were confirmed, it might be merged into geometric series, but the reference doesn't have a book title. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 10:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Craig Lamb

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

once source that does not assert notability. Also, I think he fails

WP:BIO
for sportspeople, as calling him 'professional' is a stretch at best.

also, please note previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Lamb
  • delete as nominator Cornell Rockey 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Lowly ranked player playing a sport that itself is not very notable, thereby fails WP:BIO. Moreover, verifiability is virtually nonexistent. Julius Sahara 18:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the above contributors. Looks more like a vanity entry. HagenUK 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - no point relisting this. - Richard Cavell 22:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Longcor

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

I was using this musician as an example of someone whose music I liked, but who probably wasn't notable enough for an article- and discovered that an article existed already! I did my best to improve and source it, but while he's a well known filksinger, I'm not sure whether I've succeeded in helping the article make it past

WP:BIO. So I'm offering the article to the community for judgement. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 10:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Quality Tools Ltd

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

Article about a company, needs to show that this company meets

WP:CORP. Contested speedy deletion. --W.marsh 18:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Nova

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

Not notable. Doesn't satisfy

WP:BIO. Epbr123 18:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep per Dekkappai. As well, I can personally vouch for her Yulia's images coming up on a frequent basis on the various big-bust related Usenet newsgroups. Tabercil 05:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dekkappai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Hain (talk • contribs)
    • Any particular reason why you agree with his flawed arguments? Epbr123 16:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dekkappai.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So Wikipedia should include anyone who's ever been in Bachelor magazine or on the Tokyo Topless website or has been in more than one porn movie? Epbr123 17:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dekkappai. She seems to meet
    WP:PORN BIO and regular Wikipedia biography guidelines. --Myles Long 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Stacey Owen

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

Not notable. Doesn't satisfy

WP:BIO. She has not been covered by multiple sources which are independent and reliable. Epbr123 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep and move.

Daniel Bryant 04:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Grozny OMON fratercide incident

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

This article is written as if it covers a factual, notable event, but if that were true, it should have some reference from Google to the incident, and I didn't find any. Maybe some of our Russian editors can verify the story; else it should be deleted for failing

WP:ATT. YechielMan 18:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Did you read the sources? They're in english and confirm that it happened. Further, this is the equivalent in Russia of major American Blue on Blue casualties, which are certainly newsworthy/encyclopedic.
On Belay! 23:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providence Elementary School

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

Completely non-notable elementary school killing sparrows 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.

Veinor (talk to me) 13:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Alicia Rhodes

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

Not notable. Doesn't satisfy

WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Keep - I think her two TV talk show appearances prove her notability. She is also possibly the top British female pornstar at the moment. Epbr123 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgeville High School

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

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

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

John "Weenie" Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is the weirdest high school article I've ever seen. It's essentially an article about high school sports at Dodgeville, and apparently the article was started after information was moved from an article with a name something like "Dodgeville school sports", but I can't find that original article on Wikipedia, even as a redirect page (was it at the losing end of some old deletion decision?). If the single editor who's put so much time and effort into this indends to keep up the massive (34 kilobyte) ongoing collection of school sports coverage, I don't really have a problem with it, so long as he cleans up after himself (or herself) after graduation. I'm sure the school's received local sports coverage, so the article should be notable. But the information should go into the original name -- something to do with sports needs to be in that name. Right now it's misleading. Noroton 03:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, it used to be a part (a big part) of the Dodgeville, Wisconsin article. Noroton 03:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete for Both Nominated: This high school is just another high school article, which is non-encyclopedic, and has no sources. It violates
    WP:A, therefore it should be deleted. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 03:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm certainly not trying to make a point, please
unsourced and at any rate needs massive cleanup of the extensive detail of this high school's recent sports record. I find it very unlikely that the fact that the Dodgeville boy's basketball team was 8-13 under coach Tank in 1999 is either encyclopedic or of interest to anyone outside of Dodgeville. Ryanjunk 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep: I have a bunch of historical information to add about the school district. I should have it added by Thursday at the latest. I have recently found a lot of information about the formation of the school district, early teachers, principals throughout the years, and the dates the school buildings were built and changed. Frydoggnt55 14:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep high school, and do a separate relist for Wilson. The school article is notable, but needs cleanup. The only parts of the high school sports records that I find to be encyclopedic are the short descriptions and records in state tournaments. Royalbroil T : C 03:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • changed to Keep for Wilson, as being the member of three halls of fame, even at the state level, is enough for inclusion in my book. Royalbroil T : C 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep school article for my usual reasons, although needs heavy pruning of cruft about sport. Delete article on coach - no doubt a great bloke, but not particularly notable in his own right. -- Necrothesp 15:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read your essay and found it very interesting. I still disagree, though. The main guideline for notability, at
WP:N gives the primary criterion for notability: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject." Regardless of how notable a secondary school is to its students (and I am not arguing that a school does not play a significant role in one's life), nearly none of them are featured in non-trivial works. My grandmother is extremely notable and important to the members of my family, but she certainly is not notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. The article in question has only one independent source: the first two are merely directories, the next three are created by the school itself, and the one semi-independent source is from the local town paper. Ryanjunk 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, WP:N is a guideline, and a heavily disputed one at that, not a policy. Just because an article does not meet the particular criterion you quote, it should not be deleted. If we deleted everything that was not "the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works" then we would delete a large portion of the articles on Wikipedia and lose much information for the sake of the dogmatism and inflexibility of a handful of deletionists who seem to believe that it is better to shrink Wikipedia than to expand it. I'd be the first to say that there is a lot of junk on Wikipedia - utterly pointless rubbish that deserves to be deleted. But I do not think that even the most fanatical deletionist could claim with any credibility that an article about a school was pointless rubbish. And I tire of saying that lack of sources is not a reason for deletion - if its existence is verifiable, which a school's blatantly is, then it is perfectly acceptable to keep it, even as a stub (which, as I also tire of reiterating, is a perfectly acceptable form of article). Incidentally, I fear you didn't read my essay properly - your grandmother is notable to a few members of your family, not to thousands of current and former pupils and to the local community as a school is - I thought I made that point quite clearly with the house analogy. I really wish people would direct their efforts towards what genuinely needs to be deleted and not what a disputed guideline says might be deleted. -- Necrothesp 18:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be technical about "guidelines vs. policies", we're in a weird place. The official
argument to keep other stuff. Ryanjunk 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Have we decided to keep this article like we did the Dodgeville School District? John "Weenie" Wilson still says considered for deletion. I have more information I would like to add. So is the article to stay or go? Frydoggnt55 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural keep, with recommendation to merge and redirect (this can be done by editors without requiring an AfD result). Newyorkbrad 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Shephard

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

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as non-notable. ···

joe 04:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Speaker of the Suns

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

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

I thought about that, but there were other contributors (maybe not major) and I just feel better about this avenue. DoomsDay349 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete What UsaSatsui said. Also, those other editors can object and take the speedy delete tag off if they object. That route would save a lot of other people the trouble of looking at this, commenting, voting, and of an admin doing extra work. Noroton 00:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I guess if people feel that way about it, I'll put it up for speedy. DoomsDay349 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Speaker of the Stars

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

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

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

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

Vaginahead

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

Neologism. entirely OR. Dicdef. No references. Should be speedied but doesn't seem to fit any of the categories.

On Belay! 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Briguy also made childish attacks against User:Bobjones21 who made this article. They're obviously pals. — coelacan — 21:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've never heard the term. Even if it exists, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Canthusus 21:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Majorly (o rly?) 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 10:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

IMike

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

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

  • Delete based on
    WP:NFTObina 23:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Fad, and some content is a possible Hoax. --Sigma 7 14:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this was indeed featured in several Canadian films, and spawned an "internet fad," then there should be some readily-available internet sources. But no matter the combination of words and minus-words I used on Google, I still could find nothing. If the author provides some sources before the end of this AfD, I might change my mind. But for now, this article fails
    neologism to boot. Given the number of chatroom and social-network usernames that "iMike" turned up in on Google, I agree with the nominator that this is probably a hoax attack page of some sort. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 22:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POLINCO

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

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

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

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

Heather Blair

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

WP:COI also Selket Talk 23:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 22:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osbrink Talent Agency

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

Was removed from prod. This agency fails primary

reliable sources. Their own web site and IMDP are not reliable for notability, and the other 2 are just listings (=trivial). Where is the LA Times article on this agency? I'm sure this is a nice agency, but it is a non notable small business Obina 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Dunn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment. It's not about how small is the population from which they come. It's about (how many times does this need to be said?) their overall notability, per
    Wikipedia's policies. k.d. lang, for example, is from a town of about 650, if I recall correctly. Her overall notability is nonetheless unquestionable. Ronny Cox is apparently from this same town that Preston Dunn is. No one is questioning the notability of Ronny Cox. Preston Dunn, on the other hand . . . is on just not notable. Local history on Wikipedia? What is wrong with right here? Mwelch 21:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. Your personal attacks upon me don't change the fact that he doesn't meet a single
    WP:BIO. So since you apparently have no policy-based reasoning to offer, feel free to direct your future values-based personal attacks to the makers of Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Mwelch 01:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -

Mailer Diablo 10:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Setting of Calvin and Hobbes

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

List of speculative observations as to the location of Calvin's hometown. Fails

WP:V. References do not support claims made in article or are derivative OR sources. UnfriendlyFire 00:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete, who give

Daniel Bryant 04:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

William S. Gannaway

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

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

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

````

  • Keep. The DFC and the Air Medal should be sufficient to rank Bill Gannaway at least as notable as a supporting actor from "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure," don't you agree? Justin88 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The policy here on notability is
    WP:BIO. And no, it does not agree. Mwelch 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • comment
    WP:BIO says politicians are notable when they "have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures. (or) Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." He was elected to 5 4-year terms on the school board, and according to his obituary held a few other important local board positions... so if there had been significant local press coverage of this local politician during his active lifetime, would that be sufficient? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
OK, thanks for the clarification. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 20:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Riana[33]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne L. DuBose

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

Inidividual is not notable. Lead makes some attempt to assert notability (e.g. "prominent menber . . ."), but subject does not pass

WP:N Mwelch 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Upon researching the article's creator a bit more, I see that he actually created this article before under Wayne DuBose. That article was deleted for non-notability, and the creator, Billy Hathorn has now re-created it here. He seems to have created literally dozens of biographical articles over the past year or so, some for people of legitimate notability but many not. Mwelch 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material (Note that admin closing last case has been inactive since Oct 2006, and so has not been notified). Pete.Hurd 01:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Pete.Hurd. So tagged. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_16&oldid=294881516"