Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 17

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guno1618 (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 17 March 2007 (WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, the the cited vedic methods and books the article propagates have no mathematical relevance). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< March 16 March 18 >

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. - Daniel Bryant 08:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comedian Hypnotist The Incredible BORIS

Comedian Hypnotist The Incredible BORIS (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.--Wizardman 16:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Handsome Man

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

Non-notable and unreferenced neologism. At best, redirect/merge to Big Beautiful Woman. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of keeping it. Most of it is covered in the other article. It also seems to be OR --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 09:53, 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 (due to the addition of references that assert notability, not because of the "all schools are notable" argument) and discuss any possible renaming on the article talk page. Grandmasterka 10:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metea Valley High School

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

This article is for a school that had not been built yet, there are no refs or claim to notability killing sparrows 00:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the school appears to be in the detailed planning stages, and all high schools are notable, IMHO. Noroton 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that is not polciy or guideline, so it doesn't matter. I could say that no soccer articles are notable, but that wouldn't be good enought to delete them. TJ Spyke 01:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Obviously the school has not had MUCH history yet - but if you read through the links provided in the article and in the parent Indian Prairie School District 204‎ article, you'll see that the planning and acquisition of land has already been highly contentious. It took two ballot attempts on the part of the district to be allowed by its taxpayers to float the construction bonds for buying the land and starting construction. The district is still in an ongoing dispute with the lawyers representing the trusts of what's called the Brach-Brodie property; the former refers to the late Helen Brach (as in Brach's candies), who owned quite a bit of land just north of 75th street in Naperville and Aurora. Her estate has also tried to get the private Naper Aero airport closed down on multiple occasions, on the argument that its close proximity reduces the value of her lands (Lowe's, Staples and a Costco are on her former lands on the Naperville side of IL Route 59 now). These disputes are notable in the Naperville/Aurora area, DuPage County, and even the State of Illinois as the district petitions the Illinois General Assembly for "Quick Take" powers to seize the land required to start construction and open the building by its planned 2009 opening date. Sorry, but I see NO grounds for a delete here. --JohnDBuell 01:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete, this school (which won't even open for several years) is not notable. MAYBE in a few years it may be notable, but not yet. TJ Spyke 01:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment so let me get this right, I can't claim it's inherently notable (as I argue here), but you can claim it's just not notable? Nice little argument you've got there TJ. I think it can be assumed that the building of a high school will be covered by the independent press, and it strains believability that there aren't multiple articles somewhere about this school being built, given what it costs for a local government to build a high school (in my community, a high school was torn down and completely rebuilt for $78 million). The school will only get more notable over time. Noroton 02:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see TerriersFan has already added the articles. I should have checked first. But they're always going to be out there because high schools are just so notable. Yet another great job, TerriersFan.02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - already notable, with multiple non-trivial sources, because of the political controversies. With election candidates citing the School, people are likely to look the School up and we should have an article (as we do with other major or controversial building projects). As a 3,000 student high school it will be inherently notable (and if its not we might as well fold our tent as a serious encyclopaedia of record). The concept of deleting it now, while its construction is getting media attention, and then recreating later, is simply not sensible. TerriersFan 01:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is demonstrated by the references. --Eastmain 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to one of the four referenced news articles (this one), the question of obtaining land for the school went all the way to the state legislature more than once. LastChanceToBe 03:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notability is the controversy, not the school itself. Make a new article called Metea Valley High School Controversy, but the school itself doesn't even exist and has no inherent notability. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 04:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I actually wondered myself whether this might not be a better title. However, the practice in, for example, Category:Planned or proposed arenas is for projects that are expected to be notable (and even the most die-hard deletionist would be hard pressed to argue that a community of well over 3,000 people is not notable), have articles under their own names. One can look at City of Birmingham Stadium and Greenwich Arena for example. As construction progresses there will, doubtless, be a constant stream of media articles focussing increasingly on the School. I would not resist strongly if a compromise was suggested for the article to be moved to Metea Valley High School project (a better, more all embracing title than 'Controversy') with a fresh article being created (and no doubt debated) when the School is opened. It just seems a rather technical approach. The content, however, plainly satisfies WP:N and while I can see a logical case for a move I see no basis in policy for a delete. TerriersFan 05:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:N. There is no consensus that schools do or do not have inherent notability. We would need a crystal ball to know whether this school will be notable once it has been constructed and, indeed, whether it will ever even be built. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep due to notability generated by its controversy. Realkyhick 05:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the controversy surrounding it. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 08:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep worthy of keeping - non trivial sources, seems notable SMBarnZy 13:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Good start on a legitimate topic. Cloachland 14:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Regarding notability: The Indian Prairie School District is one of the largest in Illinois - the two primary communities it serves are the second largest (Aurora, population approx 157,000) and fourth largest (Naperville, population approx 140,000). While these are NOT the only districts for these communities (Naperville has one other, and Aurora has two), Indian Prairie has been the one experiencing the most growth over the last 15-20 years. Any arguments made that the school itself is not notable I really take issue with, because the entire controversy is being fought over the school's existence. If for some reason the project should never get started, or indeed, FAIL, yes I could easily see making a "Controversy" or "project" page, but I have never known any Chicago area school district to NOT complete a project (just leave them vacant, for a time). I realize that even having this article at all, more than two years before the planned opening (a date which will very likely slip), is seen as a bit premature, but as has been pointed out, building projects yet to begin or which may never begin still have their own articles, and under the name of the building as it has or would have been planned - three area examples are 300 North LaSalle, under construction, and 29 South LaSalle and the Chicago Spire, both of which may never see the light of day. It's also not unheard of to have school articles created before the actual school opens, as in the case of Plainfield North High School (although that was a case of a few months rather than 2+ years), yet that article has not been challenged while the school still has not been filled to full enrollment, and has yet to be fully accredited for sports or have a history of achievement exams. --JohnDBuell 15:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well the article has refs so it now meets WP:V and it also passes WP:SCHOOL.Tellyaddict 17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - References, political issues/ballot measures meet WP:V. Notability established. Ronbo76 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good citations and interesting article. Smee 22:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep has several references and is notable enough. LordHarris 00:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A thoroughly-documented article providing ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate Notability. Alansohn 01:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, school is not even open until 2009/2010. The controversy seems to be primarily covered by local news and a blog -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — School is not yet open, so I'm avoiding support for now. — RJH (talk) 22:38, 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. If you guys want to recreate it as a redirect to Race of Jesus, that's fine.--Wizardman 17:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Jesus

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

Nomination - too much nonsense information (e.g. "...born in Lazytown, Indiana...")--eskimospy(talk) 00:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, for all most people know the literature refers to the question of Jesus' race as the "Black Jesus" theory, echoing Black Athena). But if this person really exists, and certainly if he was on BET, then he's notable. Unfortunately, the name of his supposed record label gets no relevant ghits. Anyone know for sure that the BET claim is false? --zenohockey 04:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you are right the article could be about that, but if you are going to participate in a deletion discussion it is probably a good idea to take a gander at the article in question before commenting.--E tac 05:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read the article. I think it should be deleted. However, I also think that someone typing "Black Jesus" into a search is likely going to be looking for info on the race of Jesus Christ. Just because this article isn't about Jesus's race doesn't make a redirect there any less valid. --UsaSatsui 06:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article, redirect the page. Black Jesus is a name that has been used for lots of random stuff... ie; one of Robert Mugabe's genocidal commanders (Perence Shiri) called himself Black Jesus, Tupac has been called the same, etc. This page should be a re-direct to Jesus' Race. tactik 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise to disambiguation page for Race of Jesus and Steven Tari. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:57, 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 deleted as copyvio. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ingold

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

Copy and paste job, badly referenced, possible copyright violation, also nominating Taskscape.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:43, 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. Grandmasterka 10:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loic Lacasse

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines. Claim to notability is being a "goalie prospect" and being "#181" in a 6th round draft. Might attain notability with a successful career, but for now he's just another hopeful. NMChico24 00:54, 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 speedy deleted (CSDA7). ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 04:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistock

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

Wiki with no claims of notability or meeting WP:WEB. Googling only gets me about 90 unique hits and most of them are either stuff like WikiIndex or other link lists. I didn't find any secondary sources on it and none are provided in the article. Delete as failing WP:ATT. Wickethewok 01:01, 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. Peripitus has by far the best argument in all of this, that he probably meets the WP:BIO criteria about lasting importance (despite his low importance to any of us it seems.) Whether anyone will ever do the physical library searching remains to be seen. Grandmasterka 10:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Augustin Calahan

Harold Augustin Calahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable writer which doesn't satisfy WP:NN. Only has 545 entries on google, most referring to other people [1] Only assertion to notability is writing a non notable book that is supposed to be a continuation to a famous book KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that most of these hits contains nothing about the person, but are names for others. Also the person doesn't fit into any of the notability factors for WP:BIO --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that should tell you that there is something there, you just need to dig deeper and do more hard work. His obituary was in the New York Times archive and he was buried in Arlington National Cemetery. He is also listed in a paper biographical dictionary, and Google book search has 10 of his books scanned and indexed. Google news archive also lists him in several papers. It makes me happy to see a niche writer get the web presence he deserves. I will add more from his biography when I get more time, and see if I can contact his grandchildren for an image. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Richard Arthur Norton ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 04:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless and until RAN finds his three good ones. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Realkyhick 05:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Searching on "Harold Augustin Calahan" in fact gives you 65 unique ghits, all for him (and he is not always referred to by all 3 names). He seems to have written a number of books on yachting, some of which have had recent Dover reprints, showing continued interest in his work. See this recent review, for instance. He used to write a prominent magazine column on yachting. I don't think he is exactly a household name, but he seems to have had some importance in the little world of mid-20th century American yachting. Brianyoumans 07:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for an author born in 1889 about such an obscure topic there are a lot of his books available. Books still being reviewed as of 2002 and he seems that have at least 8 books listed at Dartmouth library. I'm sure that some physical library searching will show he passes the WP:BIO part The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. from the brief search I've done - Peripitus (Talk) 10:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with no doubt from me. The book Back to Treasure Island is, as i understand, rather well known. Why is it actually so difficult to find something about him? It is quite probable that some will find more material about the author, so until then keep.Summer Song 13:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I own the book Back to Treasure Island. He has written a long introduction in which he defend the writing and says it is actually Stevenson's honour and not his own. I think Calahan should not be an unknown name for those who are interested in novels and discussions around them. It is probable that he is a somewhat obscure person, but it should clearly be noted who he is. I hope for some to come who knows more about him. I am myself astonished that it is that little to find on the internet, but probably there are some facts outside the internet. Summer Song 13:42, 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. Grandmasterka 10:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Cabral

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

Fails WP:BIO. A Google search for "Sergio Cabral" -Wikipedia +"Rede Omega" returns 11 results, no news. Also written by Sergio123cabral so WP:COI as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:31, 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 no consensus. Everyone except maybe the nominator wants it kept in some form, if only as a redirect. There's no clear consensus here on what to do with it other than that, so I suggest you guys duke it out on the article talk page. Grandmasterka 10:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate yorkie

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

A "Chocolate yorkie" is a Yorkshire Terrier carrying a double recessive gene for a red or brown coat. [2] The result is a Yorkie whose color and coat do not conform to the breed standard. The gene will also often result in brown or liver pigmentation of the eye rims, nose and paw pads, another flaw in a Yorkie. AKC has many colors on the list as acceptable for a Yorkie, which means that some off-color Yorkies may be registered. However, the Yorkshire Terrier Club of America opposes the breeding of these dogs:

"Blue born puppies and red/chocolate born puppies are not acceptable colors of the Yorkshire Terrier. The Yorkshire Terrier should only be born Black/Tan and later turn to a dark steel blue. The blue born puppies & red/chocolate born puppies are recessive colors being passed to the progeny and a repeat breeding should never occur. Puppies of these colors should not be sold as “rare colors”. Yes hopefully it is very rare to get them, but these are totally unacceptable colors and it’s not so much that they are rare, as that they are not true representatives of the breed. . . A breeder should not knowingly breed a dog that is producing such a known defect. The breed could shortly become other than what it is. . . The standard laid down by the YTCA is very specific about the Yorkshire Terrier. It states the puppy should be born Black/Tan and change color to a Blue/Tan dog later in life." (From an article printed in TYT Magazine © 1998 by Cher Hildebrand.)

Breeders of Yorkshire Terriers generally agree that breeding of such off-color dogs should not be repeated. [3] Breeding of such faulty Yorkshire Terriers is usually done only by backyard breeders and puppy mills.

"Chocolate yorkie" is not a breed recognized by any kennel club. Internet searches come up with no breed club for Chocolate Yorkshire Terriers (or Chocolate yorkies as indicated in the title of this article) or Brown or Gold Yorkshire Terriers. The off-color is definitely a mutation to the Yorkshire Terrier breed and NOT in line with the breed standard. In any case, it is NOT a new breed - and the faulty color variation does not warrant a Wikipedia article. If anything, the occurrence of the faulty brown and red colors should be addressed in the Yorkshire Terrier article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epopp (talk • contribs)

  • Rewrite The AFD included references! So what's the problem? Currently the AFD has more references than the article, so seriously, lets just replace the article with this AFD nomination. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 04:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite per Swatjester —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Citicat (talk • contribs) 05:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's a lousy little stub that fails WP:ATT, but the reason for deletion -- when you take out the long-winded wind-up -- seems to be "not a recognized AKC breed", which has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies or standards. We're not the AKC catalog. If the breed is unofficial but notable there's no reason not to include it. But the article needs references. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The fact that the Yorkshire Terrier Club of America doesn't like it would certainly be irrelevant if it were, for whatever reason, widely written about anyway. However, the sources given simply talk about "chocolate" Yorkshire Terriers as one of several possible nonstandard color variants. It seems this could be discussed adequately in the "Coat and color" section of the main Yorkshire Terrier article. —Celithemis 05:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per —Celithemis. I see nothing here that couldn't be added to the Yorkshire Terrier page. Every breed has colours that are non-standard, some for good reasons (some colours are tied to birth defects), some for reasons that have more to do with the dog's original job (white fur can be difficult to camouflage in the forest), some simply for aesthetic purposes. Do we need a separate article on every undesirable colour in all 430 or so known dog breeds? --Charlene 06:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per others. Not in any way independently significant. I thought this was about Yorkie bars :o) Guy (Help!) 13:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with SWATJester's rewrite idea--it will really be a better article with that information merged into it. Oppose Merge. Once rewritten, it would unbalance the "coat & color" section of the main Yorkshire Terrier article. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Just to be clear, the problem with this article was not that Chocolate yorkie is not a recognized breed. The point is that the article is misleading by saying that Chocolate yorkie is a breed. There is no support for this idea - virtually nobody (other than the author of this stub article) contends the "Chocolate yorkie" is a breed separate from the Yorkshire Terrier. Chocolate merely refers to the off-color. It is like a white Doberman or a Bernese Mountain Dog that lacks the signature white markings. Having a separate article for something that is merely a non-standard-color-Yorkie seems misleading in that it implies the off-color dog is a different breed or in some way significant. The only significance I can find to the Chocolate yorkie is mentioned in the reason for deletion.—Epopp 05:29, 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 redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. I'm deleting the hoax revisions. Grandmasterka 10:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious (Gwen Stefani song)

Serious (Gwen Stefani song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I tagged this article as unreferenced, hoping that there might be some reliable sources. It looks like the references there now are copied from Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song) since I don't see any mention of "Serious" in them. In fact one of them, SwedishCharts.com, lists the song as only being on the album and doesn't have it as a single. The single cover is also unsourced, so no proof of the single's existence there. ShadowHalo 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Serious was ever released as a single. Nukleoptra 16:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect - I was bot-notified of this AFD for creating this article, but I didn't write it, just moved content that User:Gwenboy had pasted over the then-existing article at Serious (now moved to Serious (Duran Duran song) and replaced with a disambigation page). Gwenboy's a brand new user who needs some tutoring in our guidelines (particularly image policies, going by his talk page). Without evidence that this was a notable single (or even an officially released single), I don't know that this needs its own article. — Catherine\talk 03:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on recent events, it seems very likely that this is a hoax. Gwenboy (talk · contribs · logs) was indefinitely blocked for what I can only describe as bizarre, often disruptive edits. He started a page for another Gwen Stefani single, "Naughty In The Bed", which was never listed on an album, nobody has heard of, and was apparently certified as a gold single with a music video based on The Simpsons. It included the text "before she took out the single 'Naughty In the Bed' she already had release the singles global so all the music store chucked out the CD's and gave them back to Gwen, which he kept them just incase she wants to release it again." Considering a Youtube search turns up the same one-minute previews of the video but not the video itself, it's probably safe to say that this is a hoax. ShadowHalo 04:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect - Shrub of power 09:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - It was meant to be a single, but I think "Luxurious" was chosen over it. Some people might look up "Serious (Gwen Stefani song)", and it would be better if it just redirected it to Love. Angel. Music. Baby..

--Andrew4793 t c 13:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Redirect - this was never relased as a single anywhere, Gwen filmed the video for it as a possible future single but her pregnancy prevented her from releasing it. No single was sent out, no promo was sent out. Tracklisting fake and details of video fake. The story of how the song was written alos fake, Gwen has never been hospitilized for a broken arm. The whole concept of video is also wrong, no body knows the details behind it, only rumors, Gwen has never even talked about the video, their has only been a one minute preview from teh choreographer.

Leesamio 02:42, 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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Greatest common divisor of two polynomials

Greatest common divisor of two polynomials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the article fails WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. the cited vedic methods and books propageted by the article have no mathematical relevance. the topic is covered in the articles Greatest common divisor and Euclidean algorithm. if necessary serious information can be added to these articles

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_17&oldid=115699951"