Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 5

< April 4	April 6 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete If any editor (non admin) would like to see contents for a potential future informational merge, let me know on my talkpage. For the moment, consensus is to delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pillars of Nosgoth

Article is about non-notable game objects. Strandwolf (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cut down and merge content to the Legacy of Kain article to the extent allowed by whatever reliable sources can be found; the game, being a primary source, should be fine for a minimalist summary of what it is, but anything more would require some substantive sources, IMO. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also redirect. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim, merge & redirect Most of the article is plot summaries from the games anyway. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Legacy of Kain. Luk suh 16:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 11:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references at all; fails WP:N. Even if references could be found, it's likely this should be merged with Nosgoth or better yet Legacy of Kain. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2008 (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. Ty 17:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Ganendra

Contested speedy. Non-notable art gallery operator. Few relevant Google hits, and almost all are directories, gallery announcements and news releases. Nothing to indicate how she meets notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Definitely not a good speedy candidate. Subject is responsible for decorating lots of high-profile places and events, she has received coverage for turning her home into a public gallery and for speaking at the local Speaking Club, as well as mention in art circles, which indicates that she isn't a nobody. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The individual clearly exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence is not enough. You exist. Maybe. Does that mean you deserve your own Wikipedia article? Not a chance. DarkAudit (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it does. Everything that exists is article-worthy. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sir, please do not clutter AfD discussions with obvious foolishness. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What foolishness? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Start writing. I'll check the AfD or deletion log after dinner. DarkAudit (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - For me to write the article would be a conflict of interest. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Celarnor. Epbr123 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm kind of surprised to see someone from ICU nominating things of potential notability for deletion... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Worse yet, I'm the guy who started the WICU. But I nominate articles for deletion fairly regularly. This subject is simply not notable, and I don't see anything as far as additions to the article that would change that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's written in a poorly-disguised first-person style, in the manner of vanity article. Not in itself grounds for a definite deletion but it most certainly needs sourcing and a rewrite. Mazca (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parts were copyvio from a website owned by the subject. I've removed the parts that were copyvio, added 7 or 8 references, and I'll start expanding the article when I get back from dinner. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It would seem to me notability is well-asserted at this point. Keep looks like the right thing to do. Mazca (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The refs make a big difference. Only one thing really concerns me, and that is the fact that the New Straits Times articles are behind a membership wall, which makes them a little tough to verify. (It may also explain why my Goggle search missed these.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a new policy that all news sources have to be readable via the internet? Does this mean we can't use print sources anymore? If this is the case, why do we have citation templates which don't include URLs, and why are other articles allowed to use them? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they're easy to verify by anyone with access to a library that has a ProQuest subscription, which is pretty much everyone in the United States. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here that shows a notable person re: WP:N, WP:BIO, or even WP:COMPANY. Trying to establish notability by the notable events she has participated in would be inherited notability reasoning, just wont fly. The cited newspaper articles are trivial mentions and some are not even about the subject, she is just used as a story source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references are used to demonstrate that she is a well-respected and known member of art circles, which lends to her notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Her notice comes mostly from professional activities she is preforming as a type of art agent. She therefor has the trivial day to day mentions generated by anyone working in that field. "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" and therefor wont establish she is an "important figure". If she did allot of this type of work and received a large amount of coverage she may meet the guidelines for WP:COMPANY, but we are way below that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions with photographs of her and short interviews regarding her involvement? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Its her job. We do not normally put up articles about people who do their job unless it pushes them into some other sort of "notice". We need significant articles about her, not about what she is doing. The normal coverage of someone doing their job in trivial coverage of fairly local events does not meet WP:N since it is not "significant coverage". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fountains of Bryn Mawr has put in better words than I much of the concern I have about this subject. The refs (those that I can get access to — see above) seem to be more about events or organizations to which she has a connection, not specifically about her proper. "Inherited notability" is the best way to put it.

Delete as NN per FOBM and others. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esprit15d (talk • contribs)

Arthur Allen Leff

He was a faculty member at Yale but not really an important one if I recall correctly. This is also an "orphan page" -- D.T. Forrester, April 5 2008.

Comment. Info from Yale Law School. Ha! (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 16:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems at least marginally important, based on Ha!'s link. The man got a full-article obituary in the New York Times, which is usually a good sign of notability. [1] Zagalejo^^^ 18:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The individual clearly exists. That a page is not orphaned is not a reason to delete it; rather, it is a reason to seek out relevant pages and link to it from them. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Kurt, this time you are definitely wrong: the individual does not exist since he died in 1981 (and there was an obituary in NYT about this). Not that it matters, since the issue is not past or present existence but notability.Nsk92 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- full NYT obituary is sufficient evidence of notability. Jfire (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merely a professor at Yale Law, referred to by famous people, but unnotable? A full NYT obit has always been taken not just as an indication of notability, but as conclusive evidence of it. The article needs to be expanded from it.DGG (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems a clear-cut case. As noted by others, an NYT obituary is sufficient for notability and verifiability. The subject also held a named professorship at a prestigious institute and has been honoured by the creation of a fellowship in his memory. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esprit15d (talk • contribs)

Imagine That (sketch)

Was prodded by Nickpheas (talk · contribs) whose rationale was: "For a sketch, even a running gag, to deserve a page of it's own requires that sketch to have spread into public consciousness. Imagine That has not, and shows no indication that it's likely to. It made a few appearances on the radio, did not translate to TV. It spawned no chatch phrases. Wikipedia certainly does not need a series of transcripts like this - even the Dead Parrot doesn't go into this much detail." Although I agree 100% with his assessment, and even prod-2'ed the article, I feel that this might be a controversial deletion, so I figured it warranted AfD instead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't see a real claim of notability here. The fact that it was in three series of a radio program does not automatically indicate notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 16:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Rtphokie (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No controversy I can see, not notable and no assertion of notability made. - Dravecky (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2008 (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 --JForget 00:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Surprising Adventures of Sir Digby Chicken-Caesar

This is an overly detailed play-by-play/fancruft of a sketch. Only sources are pretty much primary as said sources are from the network's website. Just like Numberwang (which was redirected), this sketch doesn't seem to have any real notability, as popular as it may be among fans. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Even the title's POV! —BradV 05:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even less notable than NumberWang, and unlike NumberWang hasn't inspired any jokes on its own AfD.Nick Connolly (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look at me, Numberwang is the only TMaWL sketch I've seen so I can't make jokes on their other 38,295 (That's Numberwang!... sorry) sketches. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As much as I love That Mitchell and Webb Look this isn't notable. Everything that could be salvaged is already in the That Mitchell and Webb Look article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 12:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge into That Mitchell and Webb Look, not worth having a separate article in this case. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 12:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be covered perfectly will in the article about the series, and unlike Numberwang, this is unlikely to be useful as a redirect.--Michig (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 16:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Joelster (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2008 (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 (music). Tony Fox (arf!) 06:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done

The page seems to want to make claims of notability, but searching for information on the band comes up with very little aside from their own myspace page(s). Rnb (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7) Non-notable band. Probably COI too considering this is the only contribution from this user. —BradV 05:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 per above, so tagged. No notability per WP:MUSIC. And I doubt that the Michael Butler in this band is the same as the one in Exodus. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:40, 5 April 2008 (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 by User:Versageek. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sama llama

prank article Df747jet (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G1 as nonsense, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete reverted, tagged again. Wow. —BradV 05:05, 5 April 2008 (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 moved to WTC Northbank Wharf. -- Longhair\^talk 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Centre (Melbourne)

Article on a building in Melbourne appears to fail the notability guidelines. Prod removed without comment by author, even after I asked for an explanation. —BradV 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Appears to be not notable. The only news hit with results for "World Trade Center" + 'melbourne' is this, and it just happens to include the two by coincidence and is not about the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using the Australian spelling centre is somewhat more successful, especially by using keywords "crown" or "yarra".

I hadn't thought of that, thanks. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luk suh 16:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but move to WTC Northbank Wharf, its current name. There does seem to be a fair amount of coverage over the years, in part due to its being the original home of the Crown Casino (now part of the Crown Casino and Entertainment Complex across the river) and now as some adjunct to the Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Centre. It's not that it's tall, it's that its redevelopment, tenants, and its sheer size as a major office-building complex have kept it in the news. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WTC Northbank Wharf, which seems to be the current name of the place. I wasn't thinking and searched under a different spelling of the word center than is used by Australia and Europe. There seem to be more than a few bits and pieces now, but since this is no longer the name of the place, it should be moved and redirected there. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move as above. Notable building (with its own postcode no less [2]!), but at least put it to the correct title. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Move - proceed with the move. I'm inclined to believe that buildings with their own postcodes are likely to be important enough to be notable. matt91486 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Dhartung's arguments. Notable with its own postcode, etc. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move I've done a major cleanup and rewrite, and added 5 decent references. --Canley (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move as per above discussion - Denimadept (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move it is a building of note in Melbourne CBD, but the post code is a furphy the reason is because there are multiple postal exchanges within the suburb Melbourne the name is to ID the location only, like Cloisters in Perth. Gnan garra 03:19, 9 April 2008 (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, although the "list" is in need of some massive cleanup as noted. Marking as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in the Americas with alternative names

Article is full of WP:OR and WP:SYN. I see no way to fix the article to avoid that, so I have to conclude that Wikipedia is not the place for this. —BradV 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to WP:SYN "serving to advance a position" : what position do you think this article is serving ?
Why don't you list for deletion Names of European cities in different languages ? This unbalanced treatment between American cities and European cities seems questionable. Teofilo talk 06:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Names of European cities in different languages, there are a list of sources at the bottom of the page which indicates where all the information comes from. The fact that there are no third-party sources publishing a list of cities in the Americas with alternate names means that this entire article is original research and is not verifiable according to our policies. —BradV 16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't most major cities have different names in other languages? Even so, this list is overflowing with original research, synthesis, red links, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going on delete. This appears to be largely the names of cities in other languages, nothing more. Honestly, I'd expect something more than what's here other than the non-english names of cities (maybe some perjorative names, like "Garbage Grove" for Garden Grove, California) - but that wouldn't save this. Basicaly, what the Hammer said. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. —BradV 05:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or Merge With Names of European cities in different languages: A, and so on B, C D E F G H I J K l M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z, removing "European" from the title, so that all cities of the world receive a similar treatment. If you delete this, you have to delete the whole series of toponymic lists : List of countries and capitals in native languages, Names of Asian cities in different languages, Names of European cities in different languages, List of alternative country names, List of country names in various languages. Teofilo talk 06:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was expecting something else, but this list is mainly just the names of the cities in other languages. Redundant. JuJube (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Most of these look like transliterations of city names into other languages, not actual alternate names. A few of these look like they might be alternate names, though, so this can probably be saved with some heavy editing. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the topic. I like the organization. And WP:ILIKEIT points out that those are not reasons to keep an article. Yes, it's interesting, and I'm saving it to my hard-drive, but it has a long way to go before it can be encylopedic. The former names of cities, as well as Americas Indian names for the locations, are encylopedic, although sources should be cited in a bibliography. The foreign versions of the names are a tougher matter. Transliteration of foreign writing is a mixed bag. As a kid, I thought it was neat that my hometown of Lexington, KY, was "Rekishingtong" in Japanese katakana. Things like "Rubrobastum" as Latin for Baton Rouge, Louisiana, are purely for fun, since Caesar never visited there. "Angelopolis" for L.A. is more silly than fun, since "-polis" is a Greek suffix, not Latin. When you get to "Didacopolis" for San Diego, it goes beyond silly to insulting to the reader's intelligence.

Finally, variations like Bogotá, Bogota, Bogotà, and Bógóta for the capital of Colombia are unnecessary. I can't bring myself to vote delete, because I think this can be transformed from "fun to read" to "encyclopedic and fun to read"; on the other hand, I can't vote for keep in its present form. Good idea for a topic, needs a more disciplined execution to work as an article. Mandsford (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Mandsford, given your rationale, if it still existed, I'd almost say that BJAODN would be a good home for it. Almost. =^^= That said, your thought: is "split" a good !vote for this? Obviously there's encyclopedic information in here, but it's better placed in each city's article, IMNSHO. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always in favor of comparative tables, if for no other reason than to spare a reader from having to look over individual articles. Plus, it makes more sense to make a table, than to edit all those articles. However, a reference table has to be accurate without question. The "Latin names" make me want to choke ("polis" can be a Latin suffix as well, I guess, as with Neapolis for Naples), and variations based on placement of accent marks are distracting as well. Mandsford (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Requires reliable sources before being encyclopedic content. Luk suh 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists like this are helpful & appropriate for encyclopedias. Apparently needs some editing.DGG (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike the crufty indiscriminate nature of most lists, this one is actually useful. Worth keeping. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really fail to see how a list of this nature is in any way encyclopaedic. It would be better to simply mention any pertinent native translations for certain city names in the lead for each article (such as in Cardiff or Munich), but only where these are in common everyday use in that area. Bettia ^(talk) 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this should be edited similar to the European one with sources.Jjmillerhistorian (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2008 (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 per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Talkpages, not deletion discussions, are the fora for discussing merges and redirects. The possibility of merging the content of this article elsewhere or redirecting this title to another article is left open to editors of the article. Skomorokh 12:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Invocation

Delete per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on the basis of 'Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook' and 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information' Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The opening paragraph is encyclopedic. The verbatim wording should go, however. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Alice Bailey. Once the big quote is removed it is only one paragraph and that is not enough to justify a separate article. I can't see scope for it to develop further. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DanielRigal. Luk suh 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've removed the verbatim section. Merge sounds good- redirect as people might search for this. I've heard of it.:) special, random,Merkinsmum 19:46, 5 April 2008 (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, nonsense --Tone 14:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wingman (Coors Light)

Prod (and cats) removed by IP with no explanation. Article is written like a bad essay rather than an encyclopedia article and does not assert any notability. It is simply about an advertisement term. Only one of three refs is worthy (others being a wiki article and Youtube video), and it is a mention is a book which is unknown how it relates to article. Wow, now that I'm looking around, it was created by a new user called User:Andrew McAwesome, who also created the only links to the article. Reywas92 ^Talk 03:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an essay filled with original research Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete' nonsense.--Rtphokie (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Nonsense. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - CSD G1 applies. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think G1 applies, as the article is certainly long enough to establish context; G1 is usually for sub-stubs with insufficient context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I had G1 and A1 mixed up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's basically a lengthly essay of one of the "Real Men of Genius" commercials- they aren't notable one-by-one, and it has quite a bit of OR. Any salvageable information is already in Wingman (social), which this article actually cites as a source. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Bud Lite does the "Real Men of Genius" commercials. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:39, 5 April 2008 (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. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 15:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superrelativity

Seems to have no sources except self-published and a dedicated .org. Main authors are creator of theory, and an account which is dedicated to that theory and its author. I believe that Super Relativity is different from Superrelativity, the former seems to have sources, and the latter being a non-notable interpretation of the former. See also edit summary of page here. If this were not so, I would assume that the editor would have started out with a notable source like this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR, WP:FRINGE. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing links I will add it among others. This is one of many TOE's, but one wich has gained already some recognition in the theoretical field. Also the notation is generic to supergravity and superstring, both other theories in the same field. Also the article should include all improvements to einstein's relativity, from any author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyCreemers (talk • contribs)

So you're saying, rather than delete we should expand? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so. I am doing my part in litterally letting hundreds of engineer students to seek for more information on the subject.I will add the new links soon . This is also why I call it superrelativity so not to only include Mr. Fiorentino's work— Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyCreemers (talk • contribs)

Keep, but needs cleanup and a few more sources. Time magazine ([3]) covered the topic in 1950, and Google Scholar has a number of hits for this term. Will need cleanup to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN, but it has potential. —BradV 04:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More links have been added, including one that in fact refers to superrelativity as a possible final theory itself --BennyCreemers (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be a great deal of confusion surrounding this article. There are at least three things being mixed up here:
- The Time article which Bradv found above appears to have been covering general relativity - the use of "super-relativity" in the title seems to have been an embellishment by the writer. Ignore it.
- The primary subject of this article right now appears to be a fringe theory of "super-relativity" by Mark Fiorentino. I was unable to find any published papers by him, so I'd probably conclude that it's non-notable. (As a general note, established physicists generally publish their theories in scientific journals, not in writers' communities.)
- However, there is also an unrelated theory of super-relativity by Peter Leifer which has been published. I don't know much about this one, but if someone can rewrite this article to cover Leifer's theory, I'll happily change my vote to a keep.

Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I thought there was something fishy going on. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a fringe theory, perhaps not. But it deserves to be on wiki, as much as Heim theory and other fringe theories. Or at least further referenced with Einstein and Tesla biographies and such for everything to be fully accounted for. Furthermore this has not been accepted by scientific journals at all because of the radicality of the concept and the miscommunication from Mr. Fiorentino about his "aether" concept wich is actually a 5th dimension concept. I would also like to see more of Mr. Leifer's theory. It's gonna be have to kept for this to happen however. As is stated in the article and also on a swiftly deleted page about him, he was a longtime software engineer, and an awarded trouble-shooter at IBM. He has also been a philosopher, not a physicist, for more than 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyCreemers (talk • contribs) 06:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to get it kept is to go and gather as many mainstream sources about it as you can. About both the theories. Even a small piece about it in a mainstream source should be enough. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I've seen more coherent technobabble in Star Trek. Complete original research at best. — Coren ^(talk) 15:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Coren (and I'd say "Star Wars"). The current article is pure mumbo-jumbo. If there is a substantial theory out there, we can always recreate the article without the burden of this nonsense. 5-dimensionally collapsed micro black holes should raise a red flag... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Luk suh 17:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Zetawoof. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So these are not multidimensional mumbo jumbo, wich has not yet been verified by experimental facts?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterotic_string, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_exceptionally_simple_theory_of_everything, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything e.a. I would expect that all physically unverified theories be treated the same on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.84.166 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia does not treat all "physically unverified theories" the same (apart from the fact that it is unclear what exactly that should mean). Wikipedia requires notability. As a minimum, there must be multiple verifiable reliable sources about a topic for it to be covered. Also, of course, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a superrelativity topic in general, there are already sufficient sources. For a Super Relativity subsection there are already two, unconnected sources. These sources are identifiable and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.84.166 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I would like to enter this discussion, I read what you wrote, first of all something is science until the theory is falsified. Did you do the research to falsify this theory? When you did not do any research in this field I would like to argue if you have the right to vote for a deletion of this theory.

I do not have a bachelor or master in physics, my field is economics. However I do like Mr. Fiorentino clear and bright view on this subject. A fact superrelativity is the word/ term for the theory which is written on this page, a deletion should be based on false statements not on opinion. --User:81.204.195.145 (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is this IP editor's first edit. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No encyclopedic notability, scientific or otherwise. And, with respect to User:Zetawoof, I think this should apply even if the article is rewritten to cover P. Leifer's work unless lay notability is asserted or himself passes WP:PROF. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and no assertion of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete this awful nonsense -- fails everything, original research, neologism, no verifiablity, no notability, no reliable sources, fringe theory, you name it. In fact as far as I am concerned this is a clear speedy candidate. The contents themselves are just abject nonsense. (And 'super' does not mean better, by the way.) Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a speedy nom before. Nonsense and fringe aren't good reasons to delete, but as you say, the others are. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by Zetawoof, this appears to be unnotable, as well as OR. Peter Liefer's theory also does not appear yet to meet notability requirements. Hal peridol (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Hello, I am the author of the theory and I would ask that this article be kept or at least remain in a probationary status until I can complete work on this topic within Wikipedia. I can supply references as well as much more detail as to what the theory is about if given a chance to do so. It is a work in progress. Is there a way to keep it in a hidden mode and then be able to submit it for review when it is completed? I believe that this work is very relevant and useful information and that is worthy of this online encyclopedia. I think that it is a thought provoking topic with much to add to the ongoing debate between the deterministic philosophies of the past versus the more popular Quantum and String theories of today.

--MarkFiorentino (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all you have to do is edit your userpage, and put [[/Superrelativity]] in it, and save. Then click on the link to edit. Paste in all the code from Superrelativity, [4]. That will perserve it till mainstream sources can be found. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced OR. Abecedare (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in view of no proper sourcing. First publish in a serious journal (if that is possible!) and wait until other authors have cited it. Harald88 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per everyone else. "The more popular Quantum and String theories of today" belong on Quantum mysticism. dab (𒁳) 19:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a quantum theory. This is the improved General Relativity theory explaining this/this. Everybody should read everything before they decide to vote —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.79.71 (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you don't need General Relativity to explain Biogas, and not even Einstein could explain Fox News. Am I missing something? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Einstein explained Fox News rather thoroughly: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as patent orginal research, with a whiff of Time Cube Bfigura ^(talk) 04:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incoherent OR. Tone and history of updates by two SPAs suggests it is a vanity article. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Zetawoof pointed out above, this appears to be a fringe theory or original research hiding behind two similarly-named but essentially unconnected published theories. Cosmo0 (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Stephan Schulz, please everybody get your facts straight. This is the magnegas where they use this to make this —Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyCreemers (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This" is a well-know process and needs no new theory to explain (except that someone needs to smack the reporter for falling for the "just drill a landfill" spiel), and "this" is an unreviewed arXiv paper by a known kook which is part trivial and part technobabble. Anyways, the "paper" does not even mention relativity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Rewrite. I originally prodded this article. But on second thought I think the topic is actually valid, based on [5] and [6]. That said.... although the topic may be valid, the current article on the topic is atrocious, and I think that is why I (and many others) have been jumping to their delete guns. It can't be allowed to stand in its current state, but I think its open to being rescued by someone who knows what they are talking about and has some sense of proper style. --SJK (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both those articles are by Peter Leifer, whose theory is currently not the topic of this article, and which may not be particularly notable to begin with. See my comments above. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Complete. Hello all, I would like to thank everyone for their interest and comments about the Super Relativity topic. Since there is a great concern about this article. I will set my attention to getting the article into shape as soon as I can. This article is by no means completed yet, so I apologize for that. I have been working at breakneck pace on the book about the same topic so I have been tied up with that project. Unfortunately there seems to be no way to keep an article in a hidden view until it is ready. In order to save the topic here on Wikipedia I will stop work for the next few days and work on this article for wikipedia.

Mmfiore_(Mmfiore;) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Stephan for the kook's link but maybe he is not a 'kook' after all. SR should also explain this as is stated here

The electrolysis of water is a rather well-understood process. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really? I must contend there are at least some properties of OH- that are not accounted for, as is stated here and here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.79.71 (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it encorporates an explanation for Wardenclyffe, Tachyon and Dark Matter in its electromechanistical concept --BennyCreemers (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to put the article under your user page (userspace, userfy) -before it is deleted. Complete it with mainstream sources at your leasure, then re-create the article. If you find the sources. See instructions on doing that I gave above. If that's done, the closing admin could perhaps note that this is what is going on. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE. Quote:

"I have chosen six of the most influential individuals that were involved in the development of the theory, they are Rene Descates ,Isaac Newton, James Clerck Maxwell, Hendrick Antoon Lorentz, and Albert Einstein. In the book due to be released in late 2009. The theory discusses the work of the scientists stated above. It points out that all of these brilliant individuals very successful theories were achieved on the basis of ether theory. The book also establishes and highlights the critical differences and enhancements to ether theory that SR Theory possesses."

DVdm (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I think that you have an excellent suggestion and I will do what you suggested. I believe to get the job done properly it will take me at least 2 weeks to do and I am really up against the wall with writing the book. Thank you for the good idea.Mmfiore_(Mmfiore;) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (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 This is a clear cut'n'paste of User:Tlogmer/Kylie that wasn't created by the author who has been creating it. For example formatting lost. Lets not waste our time here. WP:CSD#G6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangi (talk • contribs)

Kylie minogue unreleased songs

A7 speedy declined, unsourced indiscriminate list with no indication of why it is notable. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, nn, unreadable, unencyclopedic list. JJL (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, not wikified (which makes it hard to read). Macy (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS. Everything else could be fixed, lack of RS is fatal. – ukexpat (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless, unwikified list. This Would be better. Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C) 01:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cant really read it. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --Rtphokie (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreadable and unreferenced. Luk suh 02:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unclear,don't understand what is written about, makes no patental nonsense.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 02:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: seems there is some relation to User:Tlogmer/Kylie? /wangi (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced ramblings on mostly non-notablle songs, indiscriminate list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if the article was written well (and it isn't) the topic would be somewhat disputable. Pundit|utter 03:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. Dreadstar † 03:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rima Morrell

This is a controversial biographical article about an academic of unclear notability. It is poorly referenced and parts of it seem to be irrelevant puffery which makes it harder to see where any substantial claim of notability lies or whether the claims made are verifiable. The subject of the article has been editing it and arguing on the talk page. The subject has become angry and is accusing another editor of libel. We need to decide whether the article has a future and then sort it out if it does. DanielRigal (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem as if this article needs to be on the wiki. Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C) 01:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete fails A7 --Rtphokie (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly referenced and written in non-NPOV voice. Luk suh 02:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sense of neology.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 02:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the person seems to be notable to some extent, but on the other hand the article is written poorly, and the chances that it will improve (and that some editor will decide to spend time wikizing it) are not very high. Pundit|utter 02:59, 5 April 2008 (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 a3 (no meaningful, substantive content), WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SNOW. This is some kid saying "I think I'm going to make a film in 2010." NawlinWiki (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2010 film)

Delete: Fails future film notability guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, unverifiable, crystal ballism. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:25, 5 April 2008 (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 - too late - someone's speedied it. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secretdesign

Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's already been speedied as a G11 (spam)

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.