Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 9: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:40, 9 March 2007 editChevinki (talk | contribs)757 edits Abroholos← Previous edit Revision as of 05:41, 9 March 2007 edit undoAckoz (talk | contribs)799 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 32: Line 32:
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fluid bonding}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fluid bonding}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abroholos}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abroholos}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Expulsion of Germans after World War II}}

Revision as of 05:41, 9 March 2007

< March 8 March 10 >
Guide to deletion Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

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. --Coredesat 01:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

List of official record charts

List of official record charts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Comment given that you consider the user provided text in Misplaced Pages to be of 'low quality' and have high 'unreliability' don't you feel slightly strange taking as reliable quality the links provided by the exact same users? Nuttah68 10:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No, not at all. One click and I know about the trustworthiness of an external link. Judgement of text takes much longer. 217.80.96.223 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree that the article, as it exists, conforms to the description of a list of links, and should not stay as it currently exists. However, many articles have appropriate external links, and this easily could be expanded into a genuine article with the external links relegated to the appropriate section of that article. There is a distinction between official and unofficial music charts, by the way, which explanation would be an appropriate inclusion in this article. Fcgier 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.0.129.108 (talk • contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete, A7. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Radio Cabin

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

Non-notable Internet radio station of purely local interest; fails WP:WEB notability critera. Speedy nomination was declined, prod was contested. RJASE1 00:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Renaming can be discussed on the various article talk pages. --Coredesat 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lists of flora (LCRV)

List of flora (LCRV-picturesEZ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of flora (LCRV-picturesFZ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of flora (LCRV-picturesJK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of flora (LCRV-picturesLA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of flora (LCRV-picturesLI-2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of flora (LCRV-picturesQR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of flora (LCRV-picturesSA-SE) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of flora (LCRV-picturesSE-SL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Series of pages that are nothing more than a bloated image gallery. Circeus 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedily deleted by No Guru. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 03:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nightmare (movie 2009)

Nightmare (movie 2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable movie, from a first time producer. Philippe Beaudette 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Six private universities in South Korea

Six private universities in South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No objective criteria for including universities in page, nor is it written as a list article. Included source does not mention page title and possible made-up topic (WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT). Content is written in biased manner, and may not be salvageable because of possible non-notability of page title. Similar concerns hold for Template:Six private universities in South Korea. YooChung 01:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete; no real evidence that these 6 have any meaningful, objective reason to be stuck together into an article. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename List of private universities in South Korea. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 01:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Choosing six universities for a list that is based on a possible changing criterion, or list membership does not make encyclopedic sense. — ERcheck (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename per Danielr. Bigtop 01:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The basis for selection appears to be the 2006 JoongAng university evaluation, which appears to be similar to the rankings of U.S. universities by U.S. News and World Report magazine or of Canadian universities by Maclean's magazine. In other words, it is not the author's original research. The term "Ivy League" for some of the most prestigious U.S. universities comes from their football league, which is named the ivy League. --Eastmain 01:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is not that it's original research but rather that it may be a made-up topic. Why six in particular? Are the six universities often mentioned as a single group? (Not in my experience, though reliable sources showing me wrong would be welcome.) At least "Ivy League" is a widely used term. YooChung 01:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The content of this page is not a list of private universities but rather a description of a very limited selection of private universities ranked highly by the creator (based on sources). It was also renamed from a page that actually included a public university. I think it's better to start List of private universities in South Korea from scratch rather than renaming it from this page, which is woefully inadequate as a list article. YooChung 01:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per YouChung. Autocracy 02:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't see the use of this page. Individual pages for the universities, sure - but what's the rationale for gathering a flexible six? Philippe Beaudette 05:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment South Korean secondary school curriculum is divided into two specialized course. one is Humanities/Social Science course, and the other is Natural Science course. It is widely known that top six universities in terms of each course are Se-Yon-ko-Se-Sung-Han(acronym for Seoul National, Yonsei, Korea, Sogang, Sungkyunkwan, and Hanyang.) for Humanities/Social Science course, and Se-Ka-Po-Yon-ko-Han(acronym for Seoul National, KAIST, POSTECH, Yonsei, Korea, and Hanyang.)for Natural Science course. I would like to suggest people to try a couple of Korean search engine for this notion and you will find it's prevalent among Internet users and secondary school students.User:Arthurhahn 2:22 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The creator or editors of the article should provide sourcing, then, that there is something in particular about these six. For example, in the article there is the unattributed comment, "these six private universities are claimed to be most famous private universities in Korea in terms of academics and reputation..." This needs to be verified by a reliable source. ◄Zahakiel► 05:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Original research on the page with the claim that it is the most famous six, etc. Also has no basis for selection or criteria. Delete per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • delete Every university has, as it ought, an individual article. If they were part of a formal organization or if the were commonly referred to in sources by a particular name, , then there would be reason for an article. If Arthurhahn can find such a name (or names) then it might justify an article under such a name. Is there one in the Korean WP?DGG 05:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as a poorly-named disambiguation page that seems to have arbitrarily chosen 6 schools and hard-coded itself to that number via the title. Even if a list of notable private universities in South Korea were made, it would have a very different format from this article as it currently stands. The articles of the individual schools already have the relevant data. No need to merge or rename. ◄Zahakiel► 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete what makes them so unique and what distinguishes them from other private universities is not indicated in the article. Plus, it is a rather arbitrary and made-up name for the group of universities. I doubt that this is what they are commonly referred to by people and the media. - Anas 10:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems like original synthesis of a kind, no objective selection criteria given that won't change frequently. Moreschi 11:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Strangely-entitled article that would do best to be deleted. The subject probably need covering, but the current approach dosn't look like it will form a good article and deletion would force the editors to take a better approach to the subject; as mentioned before, individual pages perhaps a better idea?

User:ANHL

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. ⇒ SWATJester 18:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Piner-Olivet Charter School

Piner-Olivet Charter School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has become non-encyclopedic. The page has become a site for original research, students making this their school's webpage. Almost all information, save the bicycle safety, is unreferenced. — ERcheck (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: Article fails WP:A policy. Specifically, "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." (bold emphasis mine) — ERcheck (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you could look around the internet, local newspapers, periodicals, etc. Get the drift? Alex43223 04:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Fishy crackers, I've left a list of suggestions at the bottom of the article's talk page, together with a few links. Noroton 05:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It can be expanded, and it is a large school, i should know. IT IS A NOTABLE SCHOOL. i'm InvaderSora, not fishy crackers o_075.20.203.150 15:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Noroton, and the fact that it does seem to be a popular school. Alex43223 04:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable school. Popularity has nothing to do with notability (and how are we supposed to see how popular it is anyways?). TJ Spyke 05:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I hate school pages, and if it were up to me, we'd get rid of them. But the criteria so far seems to be "are there enough students that it makes a big splash", and this one meets that requirement. Until I can convince enough people to run willy-nilly through the encyclopedia deleting ALL the school pages. (If you've never run willy-nilly, you really should try it). Philippe Beaudette 05:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable school that contains much original research. Removing the original research would leave very little content. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • keep The criterion is not number of students. Some very small ones have been kept if there was anything much to say. This is an attempt at a real article, much fuller than yusual, and I would encourage such articles. The list of student leaders will have to be changed from year to year; since the information is of little value outside of the school, I would suggest editing this--and similar school articles--to remove such lists. DGG 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no different from any other school, probably created by pupils, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people mentioned on the page would object to having thier names published; no need to put Misplaced Pages in a position where it could attract controversy
  • Merge into a higher-level article or delete it, as this school has no notability from a national (or even state-wide) perspective. It does not appear to pass Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability, nor is it a significant aspect of a larger project (such as a travel guide). It should be merged, along with others, into a higher levels article such as Californian middle schools or List of Californian middle schools. –Gunslinger47 17:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I created this account with my old account, even though I switched accounts. I am an alumni of this school, and when the article started, it was a strong school article, but had no sources about events, etc. Now, this article has been used just for student gossip and rumors between students. Like ERcheck stated, almost all information within this article is unsourced, and it looks like the information will stay unsourced because due to its small size, there are not a lot of reliable information to support the claims made by users and editors of this article. I've tired to fix up this article many times, but it has become pointless, due to constant reverting and the lack of reliable information. I think that this article doesn't help the Misplaced Pages community at all, and it would help if this article was deleted. Chickyfuzz14 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree - Efforts have been made to mentor/guide editors of this article to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and policy. However, the article continues to grow with non-encyclopedic, blog-like details, without references. It seems to be an open playground for current students. If the article is kept, all unreferenced material should be deleted. — ERcheck (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I agree very much, but even if the result is keep, and all the unsourced information was deleted, there would 1. be no article, since there is almost no sourced information and 2. be reverting like crazy, unless the page was protected, but I don't think that is the answer. I know I have, including ERcheck (I think) reverted unsourced information at one point, but the unsourced information just gets reverted again, and again. Chickyfuzz14 18:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is in ways a violation of WP:SCHOOL but if the trivia section, enrichment and teachers section were removed and the break bit made into a sub-section it would be fine.Aquasplash 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • From WP:SCHOOL: "A school may be best handled in a separate article if it is the principal subject of multiple reliable independent non-trivial published works. If it is not, then it is likely that sufficient information to expand the article does not yet exist, and any verifiable information might best be merged and redirected to an article about the locality or school district in which the school resides." Yeah, according to WP:SCHOOL, this should be merged, since there is only one article about bike riding privileges. –Gunslinger47 05:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No apparent notability - if Misplaced Pages had articles for every school it would almost double in size! Frickeg 01:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - No sign of notability. If there is, please provide info on it. JackSparrow Ninja 01:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment, Could someone explain to me why it's a big deal that students can ride their bike to school, which seems to make this somewhat notable? JackSparrow Ninja 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The bike riding isn't necessarily notable. The bike riding issue had been put into the article by a former student. It the only verifiable information in the article, with the exception of the basic existence of the school. There was only the single reference to this incident. — ERcheck (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
But I mean... why is bike riding an issue at all? Everyone rides their bike to school... JackSparrow Ninja 02:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What? I thought most students took a bus to school. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 02:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's an American thing then. In Europe (almost) everyone takes the bike. Making a whole deal out of taking the bike to school just seems really really really odd to me. Ah well. Thanks for clearing that up. JackSparrow Ninja 02:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a legal issue, actually. If the school is across a busy road, the school is required to provide a bus for the student, even if they live a block away. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What is was (I was one of the students that got bike riding approved) was that when POCS was first created, bikes couldn't be rode to school due to a high schooler in Santa Rosa who got killed riding his bike to school the same year the school district was trying to get POCS approved to be built, so the city was all like, "We don't want another kid getting hit, so students can only walk." It still doesn't make sense to me, but w/e. And buses only go to a couple streets in the area, so most kids walk. So yeah, hope that clears up this debate....Chickyfuzz14 03:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
1. Large article doesn't matter. Content is what matters. A large article can be written bad, just because it is written bad, or has bad spelling/grammer.
2. Do any of those Google hits back up the claims made in this article, or satisfiy WP:N or WP:SCHOOLS?
Chickyfuzz14 04:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment -- 1) There are two faculty members for 220 students? More than two teachers are mentioned in the text ... ??? 2) Please consider providing a better photograph of the school. There's little to be seen in the current one. Keesiewonder 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close. Constantly renominating this article is just gaming the system. Furthermore, the article has been renamed, and the main author has proposed rehousing the pertinent info and getting rid of the article. Let's give him a chance to do just that.

Let me also just point out that the fork article History of the Beatles was an abject failure, so let's not go down that road again. kingboyk 11:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles' miscellanea

The Beatles' miscellanea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I like the Beatles as much as the next guy, but this article is a collection of trivia. Some facts are semi-notable, but most are exceedingly trivial. Any Beatles-related information that hasn't (or in some cases has) found a place in another article is included here, with no justification except "the Beatles rock, so we have to mention everything we know about them". Lexicon (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • See past AfDs:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia, no consensus, July 2006
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia/2nd, keep, September 2006
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia (3rd nomination), keep, February 2007
Also, just a random thought - since the entire Beatles article is "only" 62KB long (compare to 93KB for the 9/11 attacks - this may sound flakey, but I think the Beatles are easily as important), has the possibility of breaking The Beatles into seperate "main" sections for each period (say, prehistory / quarrymen years /// fab four / everybody wearing the same outfit years /// studio / psychedelic years /// final let it be years /// solo careers from a Beatles perspective, with the main article summarizing each) been broached? It might allow for the inclusion of several of these miscellanies in the sub-articles. I believe the Beatles to be a lot more important than, say, Dragon Ball Z or even The Simpsons, and I do believe that in this case, inclusiveness wins out over any sense of cruft.
That said, the article is poorly organized, possibly by its very nature, and poorly written, and should be dealt with somehow. I'm bouncing around a lot here, and ultimately my vote is to split the Beatles history up into separate subarticles (if it hasn't already been done - I'll admit I didn't fully scan the current article), and put most, if not all, of the information there. --Action Jackson IV 04:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
What about List of Dragon Ball Z characters whose Power Level is OVER NINE THOUSAND!? Hbdragon88 08:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge - All this info is important and should be included on Misplaced Pages, its just not sorted properly. I think the title is a big reason why its unpopular with other editors - it really implies that it is a collection of trivia. There is a substantial amount of info here that should be incorporated elsewhere. Zzz345zzZ 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is about as indiscriminate as you can get, which Misplaced Pages is not. We do not need a "splash page" for other pages; wiki-links and navboxes and that sort already adequeately link readers to other articles. Hbdragon88 06:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A massive and completely undifferentiated grab-bag of info: how well or badly sourced it is is irrelevant. If any of its bits will fit or are appropriate elsewhere, go crazy now, but this mess as a whole needs to go. --Calton | Talk 08:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 01:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You

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

English word -- belongs in dictionary, not encyclopedia. Article is purely dictionary content. Autocracy 02:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment That, a demonstrative pronoun, was transwikied to Wiktionary. She has an entire section about controversy, which goes beyond a dictionary definition and etymology. They and Them have the information in their Misplaced Pages articles present in their Wiktionary articles. It (pronoun) discusses the word's use in literature and as a rhetorical device, also going beyond a standard dictionary definition. - PoliticalJunkie 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Ho, Time Persons of the Year are notable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although about a word, it goes into the subject much more deeply than a dictionary entry would. Encyclopedic. -R. S. Shaw 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, this and the other pronouns mentioned are a critical part of the English language, and this article goes beyond simple usage and etymology info, explaining its complicated singular/plural relationship with "thou" and such. I'd say it's fairly encyclopedic. Krimpet 04:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - potential for being (and right now, is) more than just a dicdef, not "just a word", and you can find Interesting Sourced Stuff about it easily. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Delete It is written like a dictionary article. Etymology? Pronounciation? Derived terms? See the No article, which is a disambiguation page with a short definition on top of no. That is what the Yes article should be, unless there is something very encyclopedic. But get rid of the dictionary stuff if it stays. Other than that, DELETE IT!!! -Jimbo Wales (just kidding - A•N•N•Afoxlover 14:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The. Basically I think the criteria boils down to whether the discussion of etymology and parallel in other languages justifies an encyclopdiea article. Some of the keep requests here seem persuasive in favor of it, but the "The" article's redirect provides some arguments against. I personally am now hovering around "Neutral." What would be great is if somebody could cite precedent from another "published" encyclopedia. Autocracy 19:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The, the person who redirected the article said "long consensus has established ... to discuss characteristics such as controversy regarding its use, its rise popular culture, ... their ilk", it is a dictionary entry. This article doesn't touch upon any of those and is just an extended dictionary definition. - PoliticalJunkie 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If a part about Time naming the person of the year "you" were added, I think the article deserves inclusion. - PoliticalJunkie 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an interesting and encyclopedically-written article, but it's still fundamentally and entirely an expanded dictionary entry. It discusses the etymology and history of the word, but unless you want to see similar articles on literally thousands of other words, this should go. As for the Time thing, let's use the following measure: if Time had instead awarded "Person of the Year" to "Time Readers" (which is basically what "You" means in that context), would they get an article of their own?Sarcasticidealist 22:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Up to now I have assumed some of the people mentioning the Time person of the year thing were joking. Since it appears they weren't, I just want to emphasize that the Time thing cannot justify keeping an article named "You" on Misplaced Pages. The Time piece's usage of the word "you" in its title is just that--usage--and it's a dictionary's job, not an encyclopedia's, to document usage of words. If the Time Person-of-the-year-2006 had to be strictly identified, it would be the public or the online public. That the piece is a commentary on the public's use of the Internet is evident from reading it and the commentary it engendered such as this. It has nothing to do with "you," or you, or me, or Time readers as has been suggested (though the piece was addressed to Time readers). We can write material on Time's person of the year 2006 on Misplaced Pages, but it wouldn't be at You. Pan Dan 15:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree. It's not a typical usage. Moreover, coming up with our own title for Time's selection would border on OR- Time used "You." BTW, this is not to say that Time's choice was a good one. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Assume for the sake of argument that the article You did contain information about the Time 2006 Person of the Year write-up and reaction to it. Then that would be appropriate Misplaced Pages content, and the right course of action per WP:WINAD would be to transwiki and remove the rest of the content--about the meaning, usage, and etymology of "you"--and to insert a {{wiktionarypar}} tag. The important point I should have focused on in my previous comment is that the Time 2006 Person of the Year content has nothing to do with the Wiktionary material about "you," just as Time's 2000 Person of the Year (Bush) has nothing to do with the etymology of the name Bush. (BTW, on OR, I wasn't suggesting that we report in Misplaced Pages article space that "the online public" is Time's 2006 Person of the Year. I agree, that would be OR unless sources outside of Misplaced Pages have said it.) Pan Dan 22:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd say an appropriate title for the person of the year would be something like You (Time's 2006 Person of the Year), analogous to You (Radiohead song) etc. This is disambiguation and not OR. Actually You (disambiguation) has an entry for the person which does not lead to You at all. --Tikiwont 08:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I found this article through grammatical articles like Grammatical person, looking for information I finally found under Generic you, through this article's links. Could You be beefed up by conflating Generic you and any other similar grammatical articles? Misplaced Pages's grammar articles are very helpful, and losing this one would likely make chains of inquiry like mine (searched for "Second person" --> "Grammatical Person" --> "You" --> "Generic You") more difficult. LaPrecieuse 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and due rewrite Clearly a notable topic and could be written in a scholarly manner, but this version is bad. It needs more sources and then it could be an encyclopediac article.--Sefringle 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep By all means, clean the page up; but don't delete it. Acalamari 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 06:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Lee Stratford

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

Nom - obvious hoax from a new user. Hoaxes, however, don't qualify for speedy deletes since truth is often funnier than fiction. This might be a good candidate for WP:SNOW. Rklawton 02:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirect to Autism (incidence). —Quarl 2007-03-14 11:00Z

Frequency of autism

Frequency of autism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Articles for deletionThis project page was nominated for deletion on 5 April 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

I am nominating this article for deletion mainly due to the fact that the title is misleading, but also due to the fact that the information is readily available in better-labelled articles, namely Autism (incidence), Causes of autism, Controversies in autism, and Vaccine controversy.

The title "Frequency of autism" would imply that the article is about just that, but sadly it reads like a soapbox for the "Autism Epidemic" and vaccination controversy movement (See WP:NOT, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox). I have attempted to make good faith edits, and to discuss problems, but certain authors refuse to enter into discussion, and simply revert my every edit - to the point of even removing my npov tags.

So after much thought, and many months of trying, I am nominating the article for deletion on the grounds of:

  • duplication
  • mis-representation
  • being a soapbox

aLii 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Appears to be relatively well written, and sourced, article. I think perhaps further discussion may be helpful, rather deleting such a body of information. Cloveoil 05:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    Discussion has been tried. For a whole year. There isn't a problem with sources, but with POV editing and everything described above. The information can also be found spread across the articles listed above, where it is in a much more relevent place. aLii 09:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - very soapboxy, or, at best, misguided. It almost seems as if the article text is written for a phantom article called Autism Epidemic, which would be highly dubious - it's an epidemic in that more cases are being reported, but there's a growing trend in psychiatry to diagnose something - anything, and one man's autistic child is another man's eccentric savant. --Action Jackson IV 05:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: See Colin' comment below - as you suspected, apparently this article was in fact created to sidestep the deletion of an article entitled "Autism epidemic". MastCell 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
(later interjection) Actually it was a renaming, which Ombudsman refuses even now to accept, rather than a creation. Midgley 23:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Glad you sought to verify your facts. Make sure you get it straight, this AfD is about the the two year old article that was originally Autism epidemic. This original article has an intact edit history. The pov fork Autism (incidence) article has a much shorter history, and it is not the only article to have been hijacked to a far less visible page. Yes, there was a different pov fork version created in an abuse of process by user:Midgley, that was part of the backdrop to the earlier AfD fiasco about this, the original autism epidemic article. Midgley was reprimanded for creating a sock puppet for The Invisible Anon, Essjay was being disruptive in removing a complaint about Midgley, and abusive in blocking the wrong editor. Please see comment below about the Essjay controversy. Essjay actively aided with the creator of the pov fork, after a much deserved complaint was leveled against the creator of the pov fork The article in question here and now was original autism epidemic article, not the pov fork created by user:Midgley, his Autism (incidence) article with the much shorter edit history was indeed created in tandem with the old AfD linked above, during which the article in questin here was also subjected to, simultaneously a) a name change, despite not having a consensus on an alternative title b) the AfD attempt one year ago, which was fraught with gamesmanship, c) a daughter pov fork article created by an editor affiliated with the National Health Service (NHS), which is in the middle of many debates over the mushrooming autism epidemic crisis (the pov fork is now poised, a year later, to subsume the parent article), and d) meddling by user:Essjay that benefitted User:Midgley, an NHS editor who was also engaged in sockpuppetry in the very same time frame. Thanks for making sure that was brought up, because no one could even find this article because the name is wrong, which is the real question at hand). In a gross abuse of process, the article and edit history is preserved in accordance with what Jonathan's Law will soon make law. The article and edit history was shoved to the current page title without reasonable discussion, and the talk page has remained attached to the autism epidemic page. The original article has come under withering attack, due to mistaken notions like the one you have set forth, MastCell. Sadly, it's not surprising that this AfD has gained momentum from a single editor with a gust of shuffled paper (with rich overtones reminiscent of Flowers for Algernon), in the way the Wiki is turning prostrate to the lockstep paper shufflers. The Wiki has already developed a bias atuned much too strictly, almost as if transfixed, to the likes of the JVCI/NHS and the ACIP/CDC) -- in tandem with simultaneous gross misrepresentations . The Framing effect article resulted directly as a result of misrepresentations associated with Midgley, JFDWolff, and the NHS, apparently inserted with the deliberate intent to inflame, e.g., the pov fork author's hijacking of the npov vaccination critics page, which morphed into the pov ridden anti-vaccinationists, a title intended to inflame, rather than contribute to informed consent for the parents, guardians, and children affliected by autism --- another issue, pejorative article titles, that is clearly meant to undermine, by editors apparently bent on sending the page edit history down the old memory hole. Hopefully, the disgrace of this AfD fiasco is not indicative of Misplaced Pages's possible deliberate non-complance with New York's Jonathan's Law. Ombudsman 02:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
... AfD, like Misplaced Pages in general, is not a soapbox. If I was sure I understood what you're getting at with Jonathan's Law, I'd suggest you don't make legal threats, either. MastCell 04:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not respond by trying to confuse distinct issues. If you intend to distract attention away from the facts in the matter, that is what your earlier comment will do, just as Midgley's explanation about different clock settings had nothing to do with the discussion about the impropriety of his creation of a pov fork at the time of the first AfD. Please stick to the facts, rather than speculating about the huge number of new laws going into effect besides Jonathan's Law, such as the Combating Autism Act. Ombudsman 04:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There's only one issue to be discussed here, and it has nothing to do with Essjay, Jonathan's Law, or the NHS. It's this: does this article meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies for inclusion? Right now, as a POV fork/duplication from autism (incidence), created to game the system after the deletion of autism epidemic, it looks like it should be deleted. MastCell 04:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss pov forking, then you should acknowledge which article was created during the middle of the last AfD fiasco, by a known puppeteer and associate of the National Health Service. That is dubious enough, in and of itself. During the same time frame, Midgley impersonated The Invisible Anon, who clearly was the subject of a wide ranging assault by a number of editors, including user:Essjay, over articles related to the vaccine controversy and controversies in autism. These systematic divide and conquer activities most certainly are directly related both to the autism epidemic article, and to the author of the pov fork, Midgley. You should show and understanding of who perpetrated the pov fork, and about the circumstances surrounding the assistance that Essjay gave to the pov fork creator. Ombudsman 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • keep' the first part, and rename to prevalence of autism, which is the correct term, and the term used in the article. The second part--about causes--is already discussed in other articles and anything additional here should be merged in. Same for the excellent list of references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Merge Some useful info but very soapboxy and a lot of original research. Merge the useful info and delete the rest. Chevinki 07:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, per above. The deletion of this article would be greater loss than the repeated nature of some of its information. Mkdw 08:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. --Folantin 10:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge - an essay masquerading as an encyclopedia article, we are not a soapbox. Largely original research and synthesis, and inadequately referenced anyway. Moreschi 11:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge into Autism (incidence) and Causes of autism if not already done and argue about the content and sources in those two articles. This piece of journalism was originally Autism epidemic, which was nominated for deletion (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Autism epidemic). During that discussion (and without waiting for it to complete), Autism (incidence) was created with some of the content. That was hasty and aggravated things but lets get over it. Can we ignore who created what, when and why? "Frequency" is not the technical term used in epidemiology, so this article's name is inferior IMO. BTW, Autism epidemic is now a redirect being discussed here. Colin° 12:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Autism Al-Bargit 13:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge with autism (incidence) - not because of POV, which is theoretically fixable via dispute resolution, but because it's a content fork; autism incidence means virtually the same thing and already has an article. Relevant content from this article should be merged, and this article should be deleted to prevent duplication/forking. MastCell 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge as per Colin. 'Frequency' of autism is the same as incidence of autism while being less scientific language, and the Autism (incidence) article seems to be more factual. This current one seems to be uncomfortable with any evidence against the controversial link with vaccines, and keeps using the discredited Dr. Wakefield as a source. -- Mithent 00:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy keep & restore to original autism epidemic page: Although there is a belief among some who remain in denial about the autism epidemic, the reality is that schools and governments and especially families are already dealing with the enormous impact that has materialized already. The Wiki will only invite more derision if this article is deleted, along with the history of abuse and trolling chronicled on the history pages. Until the discussion about the title of this article is resolved in the wake of the out-of-process 'autism (incidence)' pov fork debacle, the propriety of this AfD is absolutely nil. In the wake of the Essjay controversy, it is clear that the edit history of the original autism epidemic article must be retained and available. This is especially true since Essjay provoked and harassed another editor (an anon who called himself The Invisible Anon), who tried to intervene in order to counter the censorship and WikiTurfing (by editors apparently from the National Health Service) that escalated over the vaccine and autism articles a year ago. (bogus revert of good faith Admin noticeboard post; disruptive block; etc., ; sweeping the matter under the rug: , followed by edits evidencing complete disregard for accepting responsibility) The pharmaceutical industry has been bracing for the fallout at least since the cloaked and secretive 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference. Merging to pov fork page, created by an alleged NHS employee apparently to skirt accepted due process at the time of the first AfD, would only serve to reward such abuse of process. Hundreds of citations confirming the sudden and sharp explosion in cases of autism and pervasive developmental orders can easily be found, while researchers not blinded by pharmaceutical industry talking points, like Mark Geier, David Ayoub and Andrew Wakefield, have slowly but surely chipped away at the sort of fraudulent research that has been cranked out on behalf of the drug industry to buttress the disinformation campaigns and obfuscation exemplified by this AfD. One thing that should be added to the article is an examination of the rapid increase in the amount of media coverage (links to come) and governmental hearings (e.g., Jonathan's Law; more links to come) about the autism epidemic. Ombudsman 02:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ombudsman, you have been given almost a year to clear up this horrible POV mess of an article, but have failed. The only "advance" has been in the renaming, but in some respects that has simply made the article even worse, as the prose is still about the "autism epidemic", rather than being truely about the new title of the article. As far as I'm concerned I hope that the end result is locking both this and Autism epidemic as redirect pages, so that this farce of the past few years can hopefully be halted. There is a place for your controversal ideas on Misplaced Pages, but the way you push them is far from ideal. aLii 09:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Maybe rename to autism conspiracy theories? Seriously, did Essjay trade on his supposed theology degree in the debate? If not, I don't see what the Essjay controversy has to do with it. I'm not a regular editor of autism articles, but it appears from a glance that consensus is currently against you. MastCell 20:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, MastCell, this is not a vote, an AfD by its very nature is supposed to be a call for a voice of reason, not a call for absent minded forgetfulness about the serial abuse of processes whereby the pov fork article created by an editor whose antics deserved the complaint that user:Essjay removed. Then Essjay blocked the anon that user:Midgley created and abused a sockpupet of. If you look through the conversation strewn about Essjay's parsed talk pages, you will find that Essjay immediately archived his page when confronted about his abusive block on the anon sockpuppeted by Midgley. Ombudsman 03:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't dispute resolution, so let's not use it to rehash your complaints against Essjay and Midgley. MastCell 04:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
What this happens to be is a discussion that involves abuse of process, and you seem to be avoiding discussion of the abuse of process that led up to the damage caused to the article by allowing a page name change despite a failed AfD. The original AfD failed, but that decision was in effect ignored, while serious discussion about the page name was undermined because of the bogus name change that violated the propriety of the AfD process. Please don't make any more inappropriate misreprestations about the nature of the discussion here. It is about the abuse of process, exemplified by the fact that the page was shoved into purgatory out of process, despite a complete lack of consensus about if, much less where, the page should be moved. Now you appear to be doing the same misleading thing, distracting attention from the facts of the matter. Ombudsman 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Obudsman, why don't you forget about conspiracy theories and start thinking about coming up with a good reason that your article should be saved? I have nothing to do with either of the editors you seem to have issues with, and it was I that nominated your article for deletion. For the record I also have nothing to do with the NHS or medicine in any way, so your theories just don't hold up.
Whichever article out of Frequency of autism and Autism (incidence) was created first is quite irrelevent if they've both been stable for a year or so. The "Frequency" article has huge POV, and doesn't address it's subject properly. The "Incidence" article doesn't mention vaccinations, but has no POV problems unless your personal POV is truely twisted. One of your "vaccination is bad" friends put the npov tag on the "Incidence" article last month, but has failed to come up with a single reason as to why he thought so. I haven't seen one from you either, yet you constantly say it has problems. If you honestly believe that your issues with the article will hold up, why don't you attempt to nominate that article for a deletion debate?
I repeat that you've had almost a year to clean your article up. I suggest that you start working on it now to remove it's soapbox style and "vaccination is bad" POV. I've done it a few times, so you can go through the edit history and revert yourself back to my edit - shouldn't be too hard. aLii 09:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to autism (incidence) , as the salvageable material looks like it was lifted from that article anyway (or maybe the other way around) (duplication per nom), and the rest is just soapboxy nonsense (soapbox and misreprentation per nom). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to autism (incidence), no merge. Just a platform for vaccine junk science. Rhobite 06:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per others. No merge. JFW | T@lk 23:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Heavily duplicates better written less-POV material elsewhere. --Limegreen 10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • redirect to main entry Largely unproven theories (particularly controversial) need to be minimized in wiki-landDroliver 20:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to autism (incidence). Looks like a soapbox and even if not, it's redundant in view of the article dedicated to incidence. Tt 225 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect / merge to autism (incidence) and focus the article, especially by removing detail about vaccinations and other terms which properly belong in an article on causes of autism. The search term autism epidemic also redirects to autism (incidence), which is ostensibly what this article is supposed to be about. Irene Ringworm 22:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment: There is a distinct difference between the issues of what causes autism in specific instances, which is what the article you mention is about, and the causes for the explosion of cases to the tens of million globally. This is not a subtle distinction, though the issue is clouded by half truth statements like yours. Ombudsman 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I sort of agree with CloveOil. Q0 22:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    See my reply to CloveOil then (just written). aLii 09:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Block Ombudsman for violating the terms of his probation - disrupting a page on a medical topic by tendentious editing. Don't merge Ombudsman's autism epidemic soapbox with autism (incidence) please, all the facts in the former page (and probably still some non-facts, alas) were demerged or shelled out into autism incidence, then it was restricted (largely, but not completely, yet) to information about incidence, which is distinct from prevalence, both of which are interesting, and neither of which is even clearly known, never mind agreed upon. Frequency is not quite a topic - it isn't clear what it means - whether prevalence, incidence or something else (the latter, I think, in realistic terms for that page). I find it curious that anyone describes the autism frequency page as "well written", it isn't, it isn't encyclopaedic and much of it fails even to be grammatical. Ombudsman introduces, above, a lot of irrelevancies, as he does all over the shop, but the anonymous user who refused to register the username he presented himself as was a real nuisance here and elsewhere, who departed in the middle of an RFC upon him which he blustered greatly about but in that instance proper WP procedure worked well. Ombudsman probably means by "a much deserved complaint (against me)" an AFD on a page I wrote, which ended in a consensus to keep the article, after considerable unpleasantness but very little information and less relevance from ... the usual suspects. Ditch this, its time has passed and nothing will be lost. Midgley 23:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    Response to Ombudsman. Retract the lie - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AOmbudsman&diff=114947180&oldid=114939235 Midgley 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, the nexus of the problems arises here, wherein legitimate content is all too often allowed to be replaced with misrepresentative material. Replacing the vaccine critics page with an article with an anachronistic term that was more apt before the advent of useful vaccines, such as the later versions of the polio vaccine, clearly shows a propensity within the Wiki's medical articles for, pov misrepresentations that are inherently pejorative. Regardless of the process, a legitimate article title was replaced with a pejoratively titled, pov misrepresentation that only serves to replicate as spam the pov of the medical establishment. That is fact. Your mistaken accusation is inflammatory and untrue, so you are the one, Midgley, in need of making a retraction. Don't feel alone, as even Fred Bauder has engaged in such lamentable framing effect misrepresentations. Nice try at distracting attention from the pattern of pov hegemony consolidation in the Wiki's medical articles, but the focus here is on the propriety of merging a venerable article and its edit history into the memory hole, which came to a head after autism epidemic was recently redirected, away from the original article that directly addresses the topic to the pov fork you created. Much as you created an an article to replace the vaccine critics article with a clearly pejorative titled article Ombudsman 05:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was a mess resulting in no consensus. Individual nominations might be better, potential merges or redirecting is left to editorial discretion. Seraphimblade 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –

List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command was nominated for deletion but received no attention other than a suggestion to merge into this article. As I don't see how either list is encyclopaedic I'm relisting and expanding the nomination to include this list as well. Delete. Verification with reference to reliable sources is non-negotiable regardless of opinion here. --Sam Blanning 02:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding:

List of USAF Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of USAF Strategic Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of USAF Strategic Aerospace and Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

to which the above seems to apply equally. --Sam Blanning 02:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Original nomination for List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command

Non-notable stub as it is now, replicates only some of the information available at List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command Buckshot06 07:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC) •

Continued nomination below

Please let me add some context to this set of pages. Some should not be deleted, as they are subpages of Strategic Air Command wings, which user:R. E. Mixer spent a great deal of time and effort on (he formerly served with SAC and has written books on the subject) while others are mistaken repeat pages and can be safely culled. List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigneed to Strategic Air Command, List of USAF Strategic Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command, and List of USAF Air Refueling Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command can all be safely deleted, as they replicate single portions of List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command, which is notable itself. List of USAF Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command and List of USAF Strategic Aerospace and Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command can also both be deleted, because they deal with a single year`s history where the 321st Strategic Missile Wing was redesignated the 321st Missile Wing in 1990-91, but the main page for intercontinental missile (ICBM) wings, the List of USAF Strategic Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command should not be deleted as it deals with all these organisations` history for nearly fifty years.

Buckshot06 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the verification for these articles, even before we consider any of that? --Sam Blanning 01:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Mr Mixer served inside this organisation, and wrote three books on it - see the bibliography on Strategic Air Command of about six months ago under M. On the web it is not complete, but do a google search for USAF lineage and you will get official sites replicating most of this. I am remote from my primary/secondary sources, but Air Force magazine, the magazine of the Air Force Association, does a yearly issue with the entire wiring diagram for the USAF. I've seen numerous 1990s (and earlier copies), mainly in New Zealand, but it will be able to be accessed elsewhere. Finally if you want a web general background look at the USAF organisation page at globalsecurity.org and at the Federation of American Scientists, FAS. Buckshot06 16:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • questions Following Buckshot06's comments: Does this have to be a (big, confusing) AfD? Could not someone BE BOLD and aggregate the information in a minimal number of pages and turn the others into redirects? If that works to the satisfaction of Buckshot06 & R. E. Mixer, then is there a problem? Cannot R. E. Mixer's books serve as reliable sources? Pete.Hurd 04:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy close as malformed, confusing AFD. Obviously, with three listings having now occured and few/any comments (which, I assume, is due to it's complexity), this needs to be represented in an understandable form. /Blaxthos 09:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Am proceeding in line with user Pete Hurd's suggestions. Buckshot06 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ekspreso

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

Interlanguage links notwithstanding, this Interlingua derivative isn't even been given a comprehensive overview somewhere, or even an outline of a grammar, to speak nothing of the claim of notability. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is simply a description of the language, I honestly don't know how it could be considered original research (OR). I'm familiar enough with Ekspreso to know that the name is not a neologism (NEO). I've known about Ekspreso for years, and it is a genuine auxiliary language that has been seriously discussed on several newsgroups. Is it well constructed - see for example the Babel text - and is better known than many other auxiliary languages. The number of speakers is unknown and probably small, but that's also true of Latino sine Flexione and Occidental, two important auxiliary languages.
As to notability, Ekspreso is the only language I know of that was designed for people in a hurry. It is also one of the few Interlingua derivatives. This can be clarified in the article. Regarding sources, the third external link is obviously the source of much of the article. It doesn't contain a comprehensive description, but it does briefly describe the language. In any case, Misplaced Pages policy is that unsourced articles should be sourced, not deleted. Finally, there may very well be comprehensive information available offline or in one of the many websites I found.
A note of caution - right now, the main Interlingua article contains quite a bit of misleading and incorrect information. For example, Interlingua isn't a constructed or designed language, as Alexander Gode's Manifesto de Interlingua makes clear. If you read the article, please be cautious, and back up your reading with more reliable sources. Matt 18:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. There may be several constructed languages with the name Ekspreso, or some variant of the spelling. I remember seeing one mentioned in Mario Pei's One Language for the World, which I have lying about here somewhere. Since the Pei book appeared in the late 1950s, it is unlikely to refer to a conlang made in 1996. The name is not all that original. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Montego DDL Control Panel

Montego DDL Control Panel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's no article for the Turtle Beach Montego DDL sound card, but there's an article about its control panel? I'd say merge, but there's nothing to merge with yet, so by itself it's not notable enough (as with almost any other HW control panel application) for a Misplaced Pages article. --Vossanova 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New Mark Middle School

New Mark Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. There is nothing about this school that indicates notability. I doubt that much more could be added than what is already there. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that "the author is supposed to make sure the article is good enough to keep before they hit save". If that exists as a rule, guideline or even a suggestion somewhere, please point it out. Noroton 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
comment Misplaced Pages has a thing called a stub, yes?AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment to Noroton and TJ Spyke: In fact, the second paragraph at the criteria for speedy deletion specifically says "Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." This isn't a speedy deletion nomination, but it was nominated for deletion pretty speedily . . . . Also, before nominating a recently created article, we are asked to "consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Those are the only policies of which I'm aware that discuss whether "the author is supposed to make sure the article is good enough to keep before they hit save."—Carolfrog 20:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The distinction is whether it is likely that the article can be improved. As there is essentially nothing there, and no references, there is no way we can tell. I think a friendly note such as Noroton send to a school yesterday is the way. (The practical reason for deleting these as they come in is that this is the time when they are noticed, and probably the only time. Probably we would do well to have some more rational but complicated sorting method, but at least for schools, we dont.) DGG 06:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: Give me a break. This happened on several articles that I created. Within minutes, there were AFD templates slapped up, no discussion regarding it or whatever. Of course, I would continue to add information, sources, etc. but the original AFD poster would never comment or reverse his shortsighted decision. Now if the article had been up for a considerable amount of time with no improvement, that would be different. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This could be a speedy delete per A7 as Middle Schools are very rarely voted notable, but we can be fair and give it the five days. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Whether this school is notable or not, the point is that the article makes no such assertion, and therefore fails WP:NOT. This is a refection on the article, not on the school. As far as the comments by the author and by User:Noroton are concerned, it is expected that an article, once posted, must stand or fall on its merits as they appear at the time. An author can take as long as needed building an article on a sub-page or in the sandbox, but once the "save" button is hit the article is up for judgement. If there are references or sources available, they should be added before saving, not after.--Anthony.bradbury 14:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The second paragraph at the criteria for speedy deletion asks editors to consider "that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." Also, before nominating a recently created article, we are asked to "consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." —Carolfrog 20:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete An article should, from its beginning, contain some idea of why it in Misplaced Pages. Why do we care about this particular subject? In this case, some people might claim that all schools should have articles, but a review of past AFD discussions shows that this position is not widely supported by the community. So, there should be some reason to care about this particular school... and so far, there is none. Out! --Brianyoumans 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there can be some assertation of notability added. You do have as much time as you need to build the article, sure, but when it's created, you need to assert a reason that it belongs. You've got 5 days to change my mind, so if there's something truly notable about the school, add it in.--UsaSatsui 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Frickeg 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The more factual articles on Misplaced Pages, the better. Who would benefit from the deletion of this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.170.194 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 11 Mar 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Find sufficient evidence of notability and I'll change my vote. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Suicide attacks in popular culture

Suicide attacks in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory, seeking to capture not just every instance of a "suicide attack," but any instance of an action which in the unconfirmed opinion of an editor might possibly be a suicide attack. The list suffers from POV problems in that individual editors decide on their own whether a charcter intends their action to be a "suicide attack" or not. Otto4711 03:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

List of basic foods

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

Delete - there appear to be no sources which indicate what foods are considered "basic." There is no objective definition as to what constitutes a "basic food." No Basic foods article. Otto4711 04:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus; may require cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy! in popular culture

Jeopardy! in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prior discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! in popular culture was closed as delete. This was brought to deletion review where there was no consensus to endorse. Original nomination was that "Collection of random trivia about Jeopardy!. The Jeopardy! article has an abbreviated "popular culture" section; this was probably forked out to allow room for all the cruft we now see here. "In popular culture" articles are not a good idea; see also WP:TRIV and WP:TRIVIA. The list is very indiscriminate and unsourced (except for one item)." Discussion at deletion review seemed to lean towards merging. Please read both prior discussions and the article before opining. I have no opinion myself, this is a technical nomination. GRBerry 04:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any mention of Jeopardy in any medium regardless of the importance of the reference either within the fiction from which it's drawn or the real world. Otto4711 04:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur with the nomination. A few examples are appropriate in the main article. This is an unmaintainable and indiscriminate list. Encyclopedias are not concordances. Rossami (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an indiscriminate list. -- Chairman S. Talk 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:TRIVIA is an essay, WP:TRIV applies to article sections, and this article is not just a "list of isolated facts", but more like a list of lists of isolated facts, with each list in its own section, which is what articles are. Jeopardy! is a particularly notable show, enough to have picked up a variety of references from other notable shows during its time. This significance in popular culture warrants an article of it in popular culture. It is unsourced for the same reason most plot summaries are unsourced, though you can verify each item by perusing the specific work. Has there been some published study referring to Jeopardy! as an important cultural phenomenon? I don't know, but just look at this list with WP:COMMON SENSE. The grouping of these cultural references is not inherently WP:OR. If you cite WP:NOT#IINFO, please explain why it does not belong on Misplaced Pages, as that policy says nothing about this particular article. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so what is it about this article that makes Misplaced Pages more of an indiscriminate collection of information such as this? The article itself cannot be 'indiscriminate'; it has a definite scope and a maintainable size. It being 'trivial' only means it is useless to you, which is a purely subjective claim. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune in popular culture. –Pomte 11:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Pomte, since he covered everything and then some. Also, not getting a result that you like doesn't mean nominate until you do. Deletion review has to mean something. - Peregrine Fisher 12:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment In this case deletion review's overturning the first AfD doesn't mean that the article was/is good, only that its original AfD did not come to a consensus and was ended prematurely without sufficient numbers and by a potential misunderstanding of WP:COI on the part of its closing admin (as per his explanation which can now be found in his talk page archives). My keep vote for this article can be found in the first AfD, and I hope that the arguments found there will be addressed in this AfD, and that arguments found here that duplicate those in the original AfD will not be given more weight simply because people have repeated them. Robert K S 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The deletion review had no consensus on what to do. That means the community is not done deciding what to do with the article, hence it is back here to continue the discussion in the normal forum, hopefully with some additional participants. GRBerry 17:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an indiscriminate collection of factoids that does nothing to actually contribute information to the encyclopedia. As with every "X in popular culture" article that is out there, it should really be an encyclopedic entry on the subject of "x in popular culture" such as the impact that it has had, and not just a list of instances. Arkyan 15:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a collection of trivial pop culture references. -- Whpq 17:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge the most notable parts into the main Jeopardy article, a collection of trivia some of which doesn't even fit in that article. RHB 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as per WP:SUMMARY. The Jeopardy! article was too large, so it was split off into sections. Yes, the article does need to be pruned; but, in my opinion, if this article gets deleted, WP:SUMMARY needs to be completely revisited. Andy Saunders 18:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:SUMMARY does not mean that the resultant split off article is somehow exempt from the standards that are supposed to be applied to every article. Splitting off a trivia section into its own article and labeling it "in popular culture" doesn't make the information any less garbage in the new article than it is in the old. Too many times editors decide to dump this kind of mess into someone else's lap by forking it off into a pop culture article rather than dealing with it in the article where it came from. But junk is junk whether it's in the main article or in a pop culture article and better here than there is spectacularly uncompelling. If there is no better reason to keep an article than its information might end up cluttering another article, then the clutter article should be deleted. Otto4711 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You're completely missing my point. My point is that with anything more than just cursory popular culture references, the Jeopardy! article is too large. I would say that 75% of the stuff in the article right now should be pruned, but the other 25% is notable, and that the Jeopardy! article does not have room to list that 25%. Yes, we need to do a better job of pruning, but that in itself is not reason to delete the article. Andy Saunders 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's funny how often that "keep but prune" gets offered up as a defense for these garbage dump articles. The funnier thing is that once the AFD closes, I rarely if ever see any of the people who are so desperate to keep but prune actually do any pruning. The funniest thing of all is that when I go in and try to prune them, most or all of what I take out gets put right back in again. So you'll forgive me if I put absolutely no credence in the "keep but prune" defense. Otto4711 23:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, let me prune the list without consensus on which items should go. I am bold in many areas, not in this. However, I have assessed what is notable shortly after I posted my comment but I haven't posted that yet. I will post that on the article's talk page shortly and I will delete what I think is not notable, under peer pressure. Tinlinkin 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per rs. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup I view the article as a legitimate split of the main article. However, if it is an article in its own right, the mess should be cleaned up. I agree with Ponte's view, that there are significant references to Jeopardy! in pop culture. I would view a notable instance from popular culture as follows (all of the following is my view, not policy or guideline that I know of):
    1. The Jeopardy! reference in a TV show's episode constitutes a major part of the episode's plotline
    2. Jeopardy! references are regularly and repeatedly presented within a TV series
    3. A memorable or regularly occurring parody
  • What would not be notable is:
    1. A passing or brief reference to a Jeopardy! element
    2. Appearances by Alex Trebek, Merv Griffin, etc. on behalf of Jeopardy! are not necessarily notable in their own right
    3. Individual non-recurring sketches on sketch comedy shows
    4. Parodies within a program (not 100% sure about this)
  • In a TV episode, if Jeopardy! plays on a TV set or someone hums the "Think" music, that's not notable. Without commenting on other subject areas, a well-known thing (tangible item) would not warrant a "in popular culture" article. A media work would justify a "in popular culture" article, provided that the media work has been discussed across many other works. I will create a list of what I think are the notable pop culture references in the article's talk page. Perhaps this would help the article rise above being nondiscriminate. Tinlinkin 21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jeopardy! has had a pretty profound effect on popular culture, and the article is pretty good (for a list). It can be expanded out from being "just a list", though, and there's a little bit more already starting up. I think it's time to get the hedge clippers out on it, though. --UsaSatsui 00:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Many "In popular culture" articles are unmaintained and thus massively erratic in the quality of the entries. They also often dive into a mere list of occurrences rather than discussing cultural impact and how X is seen in culture. Considering that Misplaced Pages seems to attract these sections like crazy, I think we should at least give the better-maintained ones a chance. That way we can at least point to a "good" "in popular culture" article and challenge the bad ones to either improve to that standard, or be deleted. That said, while this article looks better than most, I'd say that some pruning could still be done, and more prose to tie things together would be nice as well (even if that involves skirting original research). SnowFire 03:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Pomte. Kolindigo 06:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, certainly notable, WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 10:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The spirit of WP:NOT#PAPER is harmonious with the concept of sensibly forking overlong articles into families of articles organized with categories and templates, which is how we've been trying to manage Jeopardy! topics on Misplaced Pages. Robert K S 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - an indiscrimiante colletion of information. If it does not belong in an article of its own, it does not belong in another article. The arguments that it is split have no actual bearing on the appropriateness of the article. I could split any part of an article into any number of pieces and then use it as an argument for keeping it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see what was so bad about the first AFD that this has to go through it again. The first AFD was clear-cut, and gave plenty of good reasons to why this should not be kept. Encyclopedias need to be overviews, not a hodgepodge of trivia. The section on the main J! page is fine and give proper/notable pop culture mentions. 69.218.255.54 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Phytochemical. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

List of foods high in phytonutrients

List of foods high in phytonutrients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - there is no objective definition as to what constitutes being "high" in phytonutrients, meaning that the article suffers from irreparable OR and POV issues. No objective definition of "superfood." Otto4711 04:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

FOFL (Internet Slang)

Note: This was recently speedied, debate closed, but then got recreated by another user so I am reopening the debate. —dgiesc 16:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
FOFL (Internet Slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks like non-notable slang. Only reference is a discussion group. Misplaced Pages is not for things made up (online) one day. —dgiesc 04:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fluid bonding

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

Delete - no sources that indicate this is anything other than a neologism. Otto4711 05:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Abroholos

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

this information is already in the wind page I don't see a reason to duplicate it Chevinki 05:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep: no valid reason for deletion provided. AFD is not for content disputes. MaxSem 14:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Expulsion of Germans after World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Explained in the "Proposed deletion of this article" section on the article talk page Ackoz 05:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 9: Difference between revisions Add topic