Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 11: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
MrMonroe (talk | contribs)
115 edits
Line 28: Line 28:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mambo (swahili)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mambo (swahili)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikia}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikia}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advertising by Westpac}}

Revision as of 03:13, 11 March 2007

< March 10 March 12 >

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 the list. There has been some dissent that a category would be too hard to define; this discussion, if someone wants to follow it through, should take place in the appropriate venue, which isn't AfD.

Noting the large amount of support in turning this listed into a category, I will be happy to restore this article temporarily in userspace for any user (in good standing, ie. who will not simply move it back to mainspace) who wishes to go through the list and add an appropriate category. Please contact me on my user talk page, linking to this discussion, or if I'm busy to any other administrator (and point to this comment). This is especially directed at TonyTheTiger (who noted below a request to do this); please ask when you're absolutely ready to categorise it immediately, to avoid a deleted article hanging around in userspace forever. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of diss songs

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

I feel it may have been too soon for another AfD (the first one was at the end of February), but the article was recently prod'ed and while I don't care much either way about the topic, I didn't think a prod was the way to go. I'm Neutral on this discussion. JuJube 00:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, weak delete. There is so much information on the page detailing numerous songs that I can't simply say "get rid of it." Of course there's no ignoring the fact that it violates policy.--NPswimdude500 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Closing per WP:DPR as the nominator has decided to withdrawn the AfD.--TBCΦtalk? 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cronos (Robot)

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

WITHDRAW AFD Given the emerging consensus here, I will be WP:BOLD and start merging and redirecting the articles together. The new page can be seen here List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK) (in progress) EliminatorJR Talk 17:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, an AfD tried to delete a number of articles about individual robots from the UK series of Robot Wars. Result was No Consensus, as it was thought some had notability (i.e. winners of series). Another AfD was suggested with a smaller batch of more obviously less notable robots. Today, many more articles have been created by a new user; these articles are often unsourced, have no context, or need rewriting. Some are about robots which fought one single bout and lost, never to be seen again. I would've thought using the 'reality show contestant' theory, these are therefore non-notable. This is a small batch to begin with, more (there are a lot) will be nominated if this AfD decides on deletion. (Or alternatively, if the decision is Redirect I will redirect all the non-notable ones in one go).

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Rick (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IG-88 (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dome (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

EliminatorJR Talk 00:27, 11 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?) 21:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mesut Kurtis

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

The article does not assert any criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. He appears to only have one album and there is no reference to any songs charting or references for significant media coverage or national tours. Nv8200p talk 20:26, 3 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, Nick—Contact/Contribs 00:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as non-notable organization. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Twain Productions

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

No sources, this group appears to be a high school club that makes films. I suggest that we delete it unless cited, verifiable content can be added. Right now, I can't tell the jokes from the real content - they list Chuck Norris as a cast member, for example. GTBacchus(talk) 00:45, 11 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, obviously. If the article is really bad but on a valid topic, we don't delete it we just remove the crud. User:Reywas92 has volunteered to clean it up. Although I participated in the debate, consensus is as clear as day here and there's no point keeping the debate open any longer. Any further comments should be addressed at improving the article, on Talk:23 (numerology) kingboyk 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23 (numerology)

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

Horribly unreferenced pseudoscience, a similar list of occurrences could probably just as easily be tied to any other number. The WP:LEAD is rambling and speculative, however removing the problem parts would leave it meaningless. Previous attempts to solve the issues with this have either been ineffective or were little more than sweeping it under the carpet (e.g. forking it from 23 (number)). In summary, with the OR and V issues, not to mention the use of weasel terms, this article is now beyond help. Chris cheese whine 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Anyone that may be considering "Keep and cleanup" recommendations shoud check the article and talk history, also read this. It has been to cleanup already, to no avail. Chris cheese whine 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable number in numerology which has been referenced in numerous literary works (the writings of William Burroughs and Robert Anton Wilson, for a start), not to mention inspiring a major film only a few weeks ago. The article needs to be expanded and sources added, etc., but I feel the topic is notable enough to be kept. Content issues can be addressed at the article level. PS I have read the above noted and have discounted it. That's still a content issue, and not an issue as to whether this article has a place in Wikipedia. I say it does. All the note above did was make me change my opinion from "keep" to "strong keep". 23skidoo 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you are in effect saying "I don't believe this article is in a fit state, but we should keep it anyway"? Chris cheese whine 01:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, yes, the rule is, even if an article is in abysmally poor condition, if there's something of merit to the subject, it's better to keep and improve it. Now it might be worthwhile to blank it in this case, but I don't know that I see a problem with the edit history being kept. Something like libel or copyvio would be grounds for deletion, but I don't know that that's true. FrozenPurpleCube 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all the useless trivia from both the 23 (numerology) and 23 (number) articles, then merge the two together.--TBCΦtalk? 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But I would suggest in-line citations for this to keep out original research. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but continue to clean with a firehose. I took out the pop culture references that didn't make explicit reference to the numerological significance of 23 and encourage others to plug away at directly sourcing unsourced content remaining in the article. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe, as I stated on the talk page, that the occurances on 23 (number) and this (including some good which has been deleted and is in history) should be merged onto this article with major trimming of unimportant occurances. Reywas92Talk 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They've made two movies about this number, so it's clearly notable. It doesn't matter if an article is hard to keep clean, and thinking an article should be kept implies no responsibility beyond truly believing an article should be kept. - Peregrine Fisher 05:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No article about a reasonable subject is beyond help. Since this subject has received some attention, it needs to be covered. I wouldn't mind merging it somewhere, but this seems like a content dispute, not a reason to delete. Lots of articles on Wikipedia are difficult to write, some attract the attention of some less than reasonable folks. It's the nature of Wikipedia, which will not be written in a day. FrozenPurpleCube 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article may be poor, but the subject is not. It can be verified. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourceable, notable enough. - Denny 09:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The number 23 is notable due to it's presence in movies, several secret societies and other notable areas. It may well be a pseudoscience as mentioned, but this does not mean it isn't notable. Poeloq 11:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It might not be a great article but it's a valid topic. Somebody speedy close this please? --kingboyk 16:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that the article is garbage, and sympathize with the plea of the nominator, but frustration over cleaning up an article is not a reason to delete it. At the very least, it can be turned into a stub with whatever information can be verified, and then started over. --Mus Musculus 18:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion. All hail Eris. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 18:33, 11 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 as obvious hoax. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Picker

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

Tried prod, it was removed. Unfortunately it doesn't meet any CSD requirements as notability is claimed, etc and obvious hoaxes don't meet CSD requirements. 1) The Stig in 2002 has previously been revealed as Perry McCarthy. 2) A world class 13 year old race driver would be easily verifiable. As I can't find anything to verify this [1]. 3) The article was started by User:Picker34, probably just some kid making a joke. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:08, 11 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 Kill Switch...Klick. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-16 12:36Z

Go-Kustom Films

Go-Kustom Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was created by the owner of the Go-Kustom Films. Notability is not established and sources are not provided. No Opinion at this time. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:35, 11 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 me as a near-verbatim copy of a webpage that asserts copyright. - Richard Cavell 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Teuber

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

This page has copyright violation issues which need to be addressed if the page is to survive (see talk page for further discussion). There are also questions as to whether this individual is sufficiently notable. Because the latter question is potentially nuanced, I am moving it from speedy deletion to AfD for community review. I take no stance on the issue. Closing admin: please make sure that copyvio issues are fully dealt with if the article is to be kept; right now it's in a sort of copyright twilight zone with permission from the orginal author but no explicit GFDL release from the original source material. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:36, 11 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 as nn-bio. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David 'Rat' Pitsock

David 'Rat' Pitsock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable person. John254 01:42, 11 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 both. Majorly (o rly?) 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Yeshiva High School League

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

These organizations seem rather non notable. AniMate 01:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating Metropolitan Yeshiva High School Hockey League as it is part of this non notable organization. AniMate 02:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Yeshiva High School Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I know Google hits aren't the only yardstick we measure notability by, but I found a total of 18 hits for Metropolitan Yeshiva High School League and a total of 1,740 hits when adding in the Hockey League. AniMate 06:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I've notified all three people who have contributed to the articles. AniMate 06:48, 11 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 nuke. DS 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan D. Schwartz

After some serious searching, I can't find anything about this person. He wrote books but I can't find any reference to them. He was a PHD in nuclear engineering but I can't find any papers written by him. He is alleged to have committed suicide in 1973 as a result of Three Mile Island accident but that didn't occur until 1979. Article was written by anonymous author. I suggest hoax or some sort of error. Glendoremus 02:00, 11 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/Reciprocal System

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lexicon (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of communists

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

Delete We already have categories that are more suited to listing things like this. There is not a single cited source. The page is just begging to be vandalised (see the edit by User:66.131.228.205, "huh huh let's list our teacher"). AlistairMcMillan 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Because I wasn't clear before, there is already a category to cover this Category:Communists. AlistairMcMillan 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already a very well developed category: Category:Communists. AlistairMcMillan 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; along with the other lists of the type of people of the day categories, this should be made into a category. --Mhking 18:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, better served by a category. --Dennisthe2 18:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Dhartung's excellent points. Noroton 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Dhartung - a list lends itself much better to potentially controversial inclusions. A category is by no means the same as a list, nor can it serve the same purpose. --Mus Musculus 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having a category is not a reason to delete a list, both are useful. The category has no context, making it difficult to find the person your looking for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Stebbins. Someone show me a definition of "communist" that will pass consensus, then show me how it applies to everyone on that list. These lists gather names like piers gather barnacles. RGTraynor 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable list with unqualified inclusion criteria AlfPhotoman 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This "article" is an excellent example of why I gave up on the Wikipedia project months ago. How is this supposed to be useful? It is redundant to the category. Certainly, one could claim that the list could include information which a category could not convey--but it isn't being used like that, so it makes no difference. This is just more pointless listcruft. People like to contribute to these lists because doing so requires very little time or effort, but I have yet to see evidence that people actually find such lists useful. And, really, how useful can a list where Brecht and Brezhnev are lumped together possibly be? Heather 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable AND superfluoous. --Pan Gerwazy 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted (A7) by Swatjester (Peripitus (Talk) 10:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

GEWar

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

Non-notable entery. Fails WP:WEB Cman 02:56, 11 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. CSD A7. kingboyk 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hippie Jihad

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

I could find no mention of this band in any reliable internet sources (only ~120 Google hits). According to the article itself, they were formed only last year and are only performing around Knoxville, Tennessee. It therefore seems highly doubtful that they meet WP:MUSIC. Stebbins 03:05, 11 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?) 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mambo (swahili)

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

del Non-english dicdef. Although I am inclined to believe it is a hoax (you know mambo/jambo, mumbo-jumbo...) Shall we have articles about words in all languages of the world? Guten Tag, Konnichi wa, Privetik, Witam panstwo, Zdravstvuyte, Zdorovenki buly, Labas rytas, Terve, Bon giorno, Buna ziua,.... `'mikka 03:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify how it would be used for disambiguation purposes? This could affect my (as yet ungiven) vote. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep ~ trialsanderrors 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia

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

Non notable. Notability insufficient.Rainbowwarrior1976 03:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC) — Rainbowwarrior1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 Gnangarra 01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising by Westpac

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

Nothing notable about the advertising campaign of a bank MrMonroe 03:09, 11 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_11&oldid=114215727"