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]
May I ask why this page is up for deletion? I cannot see any reason why it shouldn't be on wikipedia, unless I'm missing something obvious?
I feel that it should stay, but it is technically a higher being's decision...
The result was No consensus to delete; the best idea I see is to merge with Sex-selective abortion and infanticide to a new article, possibly named Selective abortion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:57Z
A term about prejudice against fetuses. Well, initial flabbergastment aside, there's not much of an article here, and 73 unique Ghits suggests it's not a notable topic anyway. Prod removed by author. JuJube 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, vandahoaxlism. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An extrasolar planet around which astronomers have somehow discovered 13 moons, including "Agamemnon a magnetic rock and Atlas a giant globe of Copper Sulphate crystal". Wikipedia is not for planets made up in school one day. Prod deleted as the only edit of a brand new account, so here we are. —Celithemis 00:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:50Z
Game was previously nominated here with no substantial discussion- people bounced around Google Hits and Alexa rank and then bickered a bit about WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB. Anyway, I believe that there do not exist enough reliable sources for attribution. Google does not bring up non-trivial third party referencing. The game fails WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE (take your pick). Wafulz 00:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:49Z
Delete - even though this coinage has been around in this context since 1999 it does not appear to have passed into wide usage, thus apparently running afoul of WP:NEO. There do not appear to be any sources of which this is the substantial or non-trival subject. The article is sourced by a Green Bay Packers page, which is not independent, and an article which mentions the blocked kick in a sentence or two as part of a much larger article. Other sources appear to make the same sort of trivial mentions (noting that fans coined the name but nothing beyond that. And technically the "supernatural speculation" section appears to qualify as original research. Otto4711 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD A7. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person - only two Google hits. Guroadrunner 00:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, though as an organizational issue, until there is more information on both the book and the author, a merge is a good idea. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:48Z
A non-fiction book that was only published last year. We can't possibly have articles on every book. This does not meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (books) and is unlikely to do so unless it becomes a standard work on the subject in years to come. -- Necrothesp 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:45Z
Fails WP:MUSIC. Has self-released several mixtapes and one single. 274 unique Google hits (not all for him) with no independent, reliable sources that I can see. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:44Z
Non-notable meme, fails WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY, possibly WP:NFT. Essentially 4chancruft. JuJube 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to George Dvorsky. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:43Z
Non-notable website per WP:WEB. Sole reference is not reliable per WP:RS - it's a self-published interview. RJASE1 Talk 02:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I've merged the content of the Betterhumans article with the George Dvorsky article so the Betterhumans page will now redirect to it. We should close this AfD debate. --Loremaster 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by Rama's Arrow. --Wafulz 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convention is non-notable: happened once and has since been cancelled...twice PatrickD 02:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:42Z
originally listed as csd, I'm not certain either way. Artist seems to be somewhat notable, however in my opinion this is borderline. Not sure whether to keep or delete.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No claimed/sourced notability per WP:WEB. Only one interview on a newspaper blog. RJASE1 Talk 02:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, deleted by Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) as "CSD G11". -- Scientizzle 02:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De-proded. Article cites no sources for a straight-to-DVD "2008 film" that has several as-yet uncasted characters. Down.We.Fall Jake Burbage receives no Ghits and Burbage's IMDb page doesn't mention this film. This article fails WP:V, WP:RS, & Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Scientizzle 02:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Ian strachan. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:40Z
Artricle is unsourced, and reads more like something out of People magazine than an encyclopedia. Unsalvagably unsuitable for Wikipedia Nardman1 02:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for forgetting to sign my comments. 'Originals' 209.78.98.26 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, though until there is more information available, it would make sense to merge it to some list. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:39Z
Contested speedy deletion. No notability assertion per WP:BIO, no sources. RJASE1 Talk 02:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Dweller 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Good sources added. Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 09:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert notability per WP:ORG. All sources are self-published.Withdrawing nom, keep due to additional references. RJASE1 Talk 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub on a company producing musical instrument accessories. Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 on October 31 2006. Overturned at deletion review. Technical nomination; I offer no opinion. GRBerry 02:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the WP:BIO requirements. Ozgod 05:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge with Demographics of Hong Kong (and its sub-articles such as Culture of Hong Kong). Only a small portion of this article is actually about the name "Hongkonger"; the rest is about Hong Kong people generally. This article attempts to be an overview article, which is what Demographics of Hong Kong already is. Sections on "Names for Hong Kong people" and "Cultural identity" can be added to that article, using reliable sources. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:37Z
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Was put as CSD, I listed it here instead since I wasn't sure.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if notable or not.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 03:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. – Steel 12:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fan-game, no notability asserted. Also, delete this template: [34] A Link to the Past (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Donkey Kong Jungle Beat. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:24Z
A list of bosses in one somewhat popular game with a minor plot does not warrant an article. A Link to the Past (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:21Z
I have been watching this article for several days now after watching edit wars on Recent Changes. I have listed the main issue I have with the article on its talk page: The only sources listed are 2 MySpace pages and a Greek website. The other issue is that another user has mentioned that he believes the group Gate32 is a hoax. While this cannot be proven 100%, the author has not attempted to prove that the group is not a hoax. Instead, the article's original author, who is also named Gate32(contribs/talk), simply removes the Hoax and Prod tags from the article without any discussion on the talk page. This has happened 4 times now. The last Prod tag was dated 2/24/2007, and the 5 day waiting period expired without the author addressing the issues with his page. That is, until he removed the tags this evening. Since the author will not cite his references, the group mentioned in the article is dubious, and the author continues to vandalize and remove relevant tags, I figure that the article is more of a nuisance than informative. However, if the author will actually cite relevant and appropriate sources for the information, I see no need to remove the article. Mec modifier (talk/contribs) 04:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, but remove images. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:17Z
This page is a gallery of copyrighted images, and the rest of the (little) content of the page is nothing other than info on a fictional character. Phuzion 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was a no consensus mess, default to keep for a bit. We can revisit this after, say, a week or two, when the dust settles, but this article has changed so much since this nomination was opened that people aren't even talking about the same article any more. If there are still notability problems in a week (unlikely, with ABC News and many others picking the story up) we can do this again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Article has been renamed to Essjay controversy - C.m.jones 11:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC) updated link (→Netscott) 21:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable person (to anybody outside Wikipedia, that is), and doesn't have many, if any, reliable sources. For the people who don't know, the subject of this article is User:Essjay. PTO 04:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
***NOTE:Due to the immense size of this debate, it is no longer being transcluded on the main AFD page, please see
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:14Z
Reads like an essay. Also has POV issues. Real96 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:13Z
*Delete. Has POV issues. Yaf 05:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
list format of article, and notability for Wikipedia's purposes (the article content is more in line with those highly interested in the project) Guroadrunner 05:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete after a particularly vigorous discussion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article starts out with the unverifiable, OR claim that "cattle are thought by many to be inherently funny" due to the likes of their "propensity for flatulence," and dives headfirst into a long, indiscriminate list of movies, TV shows, songs, and commercials that happen to feature a cow in some way or form, some of which are very questionable (honestly, would a TV commercial for cereal really have a joke about masturbating a steer?). A very good example of where an "in popular culture" article is not justified. Krimpet 05:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Larson, in The Prehistory of the Far Side writes: "Cows, as some Far Side readers know, are a favorite subject of mine. I've always found them to be the quintessentially absurd animal for situations even more absurd. Even the name 'cow,' to me, is intrinsically funny."
Also, 132,000 google hits [35] would agree that "cows are inherently funny", and 1,300,000 would agree that "cows are funny" [36], 1,290,000 like "cow jokes" [37], 1,480,000 like "funny cow pictures"[38], 1,850,000 watch the "I like to MOO" dancing cow video [39], 2,070,000 like to tell "You have two cows..." jokes[40] and 2,010,000 say "holy cow!" [41] --Candy-Panda 06:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:10Z
Site fails WP:WEB no reliable sources other than blogs and itself also has very little user traffic and usage. Most of the discussion of it on other sites makes fun of its lack of users and contents. Tmtoulouse 05:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Lawrence v. Texas. No reason to delete history. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:09Z
Not sufficiently independently notable, and while there is some information in this article that is not in Lawrence v. Texas, there's nothing particularly worth having. Delete and then redirect to Lawrence v. Texas. --Nlu (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:07Z
Delete - there is nothing culturally signficant about playing basketball on Christmas. Otto4711 07:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:04Z
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:03Z
This one-line stub is about a new not notable organization that goes against WP:NN. Basically any mention of it on the web is from sites that mirror this Wikipedia entry. No notable or newsworthy achievements beyond a desire to publicise that they exist that violates WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. IZAK 08:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"biography article" on a WP:NPF teacher who published a couple of papers. Created to push ideological fringecruft. Kazanas' notability can be fully addressed in the articles on the subjects treated in his papers (out of India and indigenous Aryans). dab (𒁳) 09:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not noteable, Not Referenced, Likely to be Unreferencable, Non-Neutral Point Of View, Not noteable, Limited (And poorly written) Content(And unlikely to be improved given the rarety of edits), insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject, self promotion, and also Not Noteable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#The_primary_notability_criterion Was proposed for deletion previously and the tab removed with the reasoning that there are several other football pages out there. See also the 'Bellsprout' debate and remember just because a similar page exists doesn't mean that page SHOULD exist.Simondrake 09:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This just seems to contradict the rules of wikipedia. Homer Simpson gets his own page but Apu's children do not get individual pages because they are not noteable, they are part of a combined page. Perhaps a few BCAFL pages should consider being merged into, say, Minor teams in the BCAFL?
I do aknowledge the comments about my tone, and I appreciate perhaps it should have been a little more civil. But so far the only three reasons given to keep it are:
So I'll say this one last time. I do not think the Surrey Stingers are noteable enough to warrant a page on wikipedia. Can anyone find proof that they are?Simondrake 13:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I will say this again: Why have you singled the Stingers out for this treatment? There are several other BCAFL teams that are even less notable than them but you have left their pages alone. The fact that you are a Surrey student makes this seem like a petty vendetta against the Stingers American Football team.Jskivington 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is a mess, it's become more about my tone and calling me petty than it is about the page. The bottom line (And the top line, if you'll look at the topic instead of worrying about my tone) is that I do not think this team is noteable on its own. The fact that there are other pages out there that are less noteable is a topic for another day, this discussion is about Surrey Stingers.Simondrake 16:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep on saying according to Wikipedia rules, but you are yet to note a single rule that this page does not conform to despite numerous requests, you keep on going "aginst the rules, against the rules!!". When someone stands up in court they are charged with an individual law violation not just "he broke the law". You also said "I do not think that this team is notable on it's own" which implies that your arguments are not based on any rules but a dislike for this individual page or team. This amuses me given the fact that you falsely claimed that this page is non-neutral, but that is a much better description of you.Jskivington 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically someone's personal essay on the phenomenon that newspapers have websites that allow people to read their articles online. >Radiant< 09:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((cite journal))
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help)The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No wp:reliable sources, so very probably wp:non-notable. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-level cosmology. — coelacan talk — 10:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete - No reliable assertion of notability. Google search for "Mark Hucko" returns hits mostly based on this article and Hucko's own websites. However, I'm prepared to be argued down and to that end, will post at the Languages ref desk to see if any linguists have heard of him. --Dweller 11:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Deferring to linguistic expert, User:N-true, below. --Dweller 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Despite the massive amount of argumentless keep votes (which hold no weight as AFD is not a ballot), the concern of the nomination (verifiability) was not addressed. This article is a POV fork, and no relevant, reliable sources or any other material were presented that could make this not a POV fork. --Coredesat 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point-of-view fork of North America (which is well sourced), confusing the topic. As well, the sources listed don't generally support the content: the English Encarta reference[43] indicates that North America is a continent which is also comprised of Greenland, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and Bermuda and then goes on to indicate that it sometimes includes the region of Central America and the West Indies; the Spanish version[44] may indicate it is instead a subcontinent with the same constituents. The Crystal reference[45] indicates too that it is a continent that also includes the West Indies. (Throughout, Canada, the United States, and Mexico are included.) Article content (even if one believes that there are other continental models) may be added or carried over to North America, where the creation of this article was neither discussed nor consensually agreed to, but I do not believe there is anything not already at North America or cannot be. Corticopia 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Theshowmecanuck 16:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to North America. Merge any content not present in the latter.--Húsönd 15:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are lots of different ways of dividing America, each one is used for different purposes, the 3 most common ones are:
Linguistically:
Continentally:
Regionally:
All of the above have their own article, I don't see why the North American Region shouldn't have his own as well. Supaman89 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Linguistically:
Continentally:
Regionally:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaman89 (talk • contribs)
Merge, rename, redirect, disambiguate. Wow. I came across this just randomly checking AfDs. I had no idea there were [insert number here] different concepts of North America. Which, to me, means that an entire article should exist simply to disambiguate these. Perhaps North America (and not North America (disambiguation) itself should be such a disambig page. The lead would state that NA may refer to x under schema q, y under schema r, and z under schema s, and go on to briefly explain schemas q, r, and s. In any case, however, the title North America (Americas) makes absolutely no sense to me, an outsider. I'd never type that into a search box. OscarTheCat3 22:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for me is a good article. --Battroid 01:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, patent nonsense. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently original research by User:MahargJG, no sources. The previous version was about a neologism without any evidence for its use (and no sources, of course). Google produces results such as "Flat Earthism", "Mother Earthism" (which is probably closest to the article's content) and even "Google Eartism", but no reliable sources. Previous version deprodded by User:MahargJG. Neither the previous version nor this one are notable or verifiable. Earthism was once before deleted, but at least one of the two current versions can't be a repost, so speedy deletion probably doesn't apply. Huon 10:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Amen. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:02Z
Word from the Hebrew prayers, generally prompting the community to respond Amen. Was listed for PROD but notice was removed. Hence listing here. I'd say delete; we're not a Hebrew dictionary. Alternatively, Amen or Kaddish would be good recipients for a merge & redirect. JFW | T@lk 10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There are no sources, so it cannot be attributed, and being nominated for an award doesn't qualify under the notability guidelines. Trebor 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted once Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret of Mana Theater as failing to assert notability, now asserts it but without establishing it. No reliable sources (comixpedia is user-updated), not won an award or anything. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep after sources and notability were added. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a chain of 30pizza restaurants. No assertion of meeitng WP:CORP, no evidence of those multiple non-trivial independent sources we all like to see. Oh, and it sells "sandwhiches" - which is of course why you never starve in the desert. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Saekel, Karola (1994-09-21). "What's new". The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2007-03-06.
- Grobaty, Tim (2006-11-17). "What's hot!: Extreme reigns supreme". Long Beach Press-Telegram. Retrieved 2007-03-06.
- Jergler, Don (2004-05-03). "New eatery takes pizza to the extreme". Long Beach Press-Telegram. Retrieved 2007-03-06.
- Mulson, Jen (2002-08-02). "Extreme-ly good pizzas satisfy fed-up GO! staffers". The Gazette (Colorado Springs). Retrieved 2007-03-06.
- Northrop, Jane (2006-11-26). "Extreme Pizza satisfies Pacifica customers". Pacifica Tribune. Retrieved 2007-03-06.
- Paterik, Stephanie (2003-05-10). "X-actly what Gilbert taste buds longed for". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved 2007-03-06.
- Robinson, Kathryn (2005-08-12). "Daring combinations make sense to the taste buds". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 2007-03-06.
- Rodriguez, Robert (2001-12-29). "Taking Pizza to an Extreme - Fresno pizza place opens with ultimate sports theme". The Fresno Bee. Retrieved 2007-03-06.
- Dronfield, Joanne (2005-09-08). "Extreme Pizza". Marin Independent Journal. Retrieved 2007-03-06.
- Hill, David (2005-02-21). "Holy Cow! Extreme Pizza comes in a Pandora's Box". The Modesto Bee. Retrieved 2007-03-06.
- Noda, Debbie (2006-04-21). "Extreme Pizza aims outside food stratosphere". The Modesto Bee. Retrieved 2007-03-06.
The result was merge to List of locations in Artemis Fowl. — Rebelguys2 talk 22:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The police plaza in Artemis Fowl is a place in Artemis Fowl. It is the police plaza. And there you have it. The infobox is bigger than the article content. Maybe merge to a list of locations in Artemis Fowl? No sources, naturally. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:44Z
A medical student. Has published a PHD thesis but not a lot more. Nowhere near meeting WP:BIO in any form Nuttah68 12:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. In the light of substantial refs provided by Quarl (good work) the nom has been withdrawn. The only "weak delete" was if refs weren't found, which they have been, since which unanimous keeps. Tyrenius 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. No major press coverage or critique of works. Nv8200p talk 15:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:38Z
I really don't know what to make of this. Firstly, the page title (Major discoveries) is not what the page is about, as is made quite clear in the introductory sentence: it's meant to be a list of people who have made tow or more discoveries. Secondly, no definition is given of 'major discovery' leaving it so vage as to be useless. Thirdly, no edit has ben made since the page was created on 17 November 2006 (and what's there is not exactly meaningful). Fourthly, I do not see how this can properly develop into a useful page beyond the trivial. Emeraude 12:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. When nominated, this was about an athlete, now it's about a porn star again. If someone thinks that person is nonnotable, they can renominate the article for deletion. Sandstein 18:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to be a biography of a thus-far non-notable individual and appears to be vanity. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion, but it seems to have an extensive edit history. Thisisbossi 04:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:NOT#CBALL. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Annual event that hasn't had it's first show yet, so no notability at all. No sources, no non trivial independent third-party media mentions, vaguely crystal-ball like (although it's not making predicitons, it IS assuming that the event is going to become notable), Prod was contested, although the issues raised were not addressed, so this is AfD is next precedural step. The Kinslayer 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. I'm sure the nomination was done in good faith but there are no grounds for this article to be deleted. —Moondyne 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted per WP:BLP as it does not have any citations, and could potentially be libelous. In WP:BLP, admins are directed to delete this kind of article without discussion (I'm not an admin). Auroranorth 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Rama's Arrow[59]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entire article is an advertisement, copy and pasted verbatim from the school's website StuartDouglas 13:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:37Z
Is pornstars who happen to be mothers (and not dead etc?) really a suitable topic for a list like this? I know "if we have this we would have to have X" is a dubious argument. However, in this case I think it might be valid. You could have a similar list for any category of women, filmstars, politicians etc (or fathers for that matter). It's not encyclopaedic. Also the list fails WP:ATT as it is unreferenced. In addition it may breach the privacy of the offspring named Jules1975 14:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:36Z
Obvious hoax (read the lead and the trivia, no such show as Foster's Home or Imaginary Fiends), though there was such thing as "Jib" in the Ed, Edd n Eddy episode "Who Let the Ed In?." Note that a few days ago, I informed Mackensen about this, saying it was similar to the misinformation added by Danny Daniel's sockpuppets. This article was prodded until an IP removed it. Squirepants101 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should redirect to Oxford University#Student life at best, as this is just the college caving club (and not related to where the Beatles played). Utgard Loki 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There's barely enough content to escape WP:CSD for no context/content, but the content does not assert notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization; I can't find any multiple independent sources, thus failing WP:CORP Part Deux 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion by admin Trebor Rowntree as the article falls under the criteria of CSD G7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 13:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Cut-n-paste from Memory Alpha [60] which has a Creative Commons "by-nc" (i.e., attribution + noncommercial) license [61], which therefore is probably not something that can be copied at will into WP. (2) Subtrivial fancruft. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Goodbye Alice in Wonderland. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:24Z
Unsourced! not even on iTunes, and that would be the only source. Seventysix67 08:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (User:24.92.43.153 created this account to use WP:AFD)[reply]
The result was Dismissed. Content dispute. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:34Z
This article is blatant advertising. BIS did not reduce the incidence of awareness in a large controlled trial. Consequently, this technology is not generally accepted as measuring the depth of anaesthesia. http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/content/full/100/4/1221 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bezzera (talk • contribs) 2007/03/01 11:36:40
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability requirements for musicians. Cacophony 05:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable restaurant chain; 'world-famous' is definitely puffery and so doesn't count. Veinor (talk to me) 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Goodbye Alice in Wonderland. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:23Z
Unsourced! not even on iTunes, and that would be the only source. Plus the fact that the Fragile Heart 2007 was never released as a single. Yes there are two Fragile Heart songs, but one was released in (2003?) on 0304 and the other on Goodbye Alice in Wonderland. But the page seems to fake the idea about the later, making it seem like it was actually released. (I looked on iTunes and Google and couldn't find anything, not even a statement on her site saying the song was ever being "re-released", especially as a "Fragile Heart 2007".) Seventysix67 09:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (User:24.92.43.153 created this account to use WP:AFD)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:30Z
Unsourced! not even on iTunes, and that would be the only source. As with all the other articles about what seem to be fabricated songs. (Fragile Heart 2007, 1,000 Miles Away (Jewel song)) Seventysix67 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (User:24.92.43.153 created this account to use WP:AFD)[reply]
Delete appears to be pure adverising material by a musician whose notability is dubious. Peterkingiron 01:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable politician Thiebes 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Early eliminated contestant on Idol 3. Appears only to have had a few minor journalist credits since the contest, and is now a high-school football coach. Delete per wikipedia is not a directory of former Idol contestants. Ohconfucius 08:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Rogers is now the host of Really Big Things on the Discovery Channel. This now makes him a notable television host. So deleting his profile doesn't make any sense now. I'm going to remove the delete tag.
The2ndflood 10:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:19Z
Delete per avoid neologisms & no original research. Seems to be a protologism as I can't find any uses of this term via Google search. Cacophony 05:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a phrase in the public discourse. If a google search is your criterion for a phrase that carries meaning, this website is destined to fall out of fashion. This phrase arose shortly after Charles in Charge was cancelled from prime time television. I can vouch for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltyr (talk • contribs) aka User:Ttlsg(talk)(contribs) aka User:Motherg(talk)(contribs) aka User:Yessm(talk)(contribs)
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:18Z
Unsourced!, and Google shows no sources. Jewel has only mentioned a country album, not a greatest hits compilation. Seventysix67 09:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (User:24.92.43.153 created this account to use WP:AFD)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:17Z
This article is a hoax. Such thing doesn't exist. Google shows 0 results (besides Wikipedia) for this term, [63] and the sources used also do not bring any results. Per WP:Verify policy, an article which does not have clear, reliable and verifiable third party sources should not be on Wikipedia. --Rayis 15:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A minor C list radio commentator, who while alive in a sub-stellar celebrity orbit, is notable now only to his relatives. Like many of us, with a footprint in fine sand, which closes around us on passing. 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayana (talk • contribs) 2007/03/02 00:18:58
The result was Redirect to Sacred Tradition. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:17Z
Essay, comepletely original research Ozzykhan 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:16Z
no claim of notability other than having a pub build to celebrate a jubilee. Hardly seems notable. prod tag added but then removed without comment any justification given Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is a nonnotable businessman who apparently created the page himself. The article also fails WP:V as no asserted facts are sourced. Butseriouslyfolks 17:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is a nonnotable clergyman. Article was apparently created by his son. Article also fails WP:V in that none of its factual assertions are cited to any sources. Butseriouslyfolks 17:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Band does not seem to meet the central notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:14Z
No evidence of actual production; no evidence that there are any actors involved. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Veinor (talk to me) 17:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:13Z
Profile of a blogger, non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:WEB. It's a contested prod; the author is looking for more sources, but I don't think the notability claims, even if sourced, merit inclusion in Wikipedia. RJASE1 Talk 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:09Z
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; what exactly is "famous"? And do we include songs that have one trombone playing a single note, or do we need 'substantial' trombone involvement (and what is "substantial"?) Too nebulous to really be maintainable Veinor (talk to me) 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Homeopathy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:01Z
Possible POV fork of Homeopathy, though, to be fair, there are strong opinions on Homeopathy, and it may just be that only one side edited it. However, in any case, the article admits the subject is almost undefinable as seperate to Homeopathy, except that it's somehow better than more general homeopathy. Should become a redirect, I think. Adam Cuerden talk 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --Parker007 00:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:08Z
Sole claim to "notability" is being Wayne Gretzky's brother. There is no need to create separate entries for every sibling of famous people. Dsreyn 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep - Mistaken nomination; hacked article. Avi 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Writing one book in and of itself is insufficient for notability Avi 18:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guitarist's name was spelled differently. They're clearly different people. WikiManGreen 07:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:07Z
POV fork of Martin Luther. This section has been repeatedly reinserted and deleted from the main article. (The consensus is that it doesn't belong there.) It's trivia more than anything else. BigDT 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Literature: Jörg Haustein: Martin Luthers Stellung zum Zauber- und Hexenwesen, Dissertation, 1990 (Jörg Haustein: Martin Luther´s attitude towards witchcraft, dissertation 1990)
Maybe the article could be revised. Hegeler 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The recent DRV of this article was closed with the comment that an AfD would be opened in 1 week's time. I'm going ahead, being bold, and nominating this now. This is a procedural nomination based on the DRV outcome; I personally don't have an opinion either way at this time. All I will ask though as that everyone try and remain WP:COOL, WP:CIVIL, and that the AfD be allowed to run full course without any WP:SNOW, WP:IAR or other rationales for early closure.--Isotope23 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 01:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism Egil 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Wizardman 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Major instance of WP:CRYSTAL, specifically part 2. cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 01:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is entirely original research. There is no such thing as an "unofficial" Twenty20 World Championship. The author has just put the records of all the games together (which aren't even up to date). The Twenty20 page covers all this information anyway. Additionally, there is already a page for the actual championship at: Twenty20 World Championship. Ozzykhan 19:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not even OR. It's made-up stuff about a non-existent "competition". Johnlp 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely invented. Stephen Turner (Talk) 23:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proded 24 February with this message Article highly promotional of a local languge school with little or no claim for notability or for significance beyond its immediate location. Article maintained almost entirely by one contributor who has not edited any other article, and therefore appears to be using Wikipedia solely for the purpose of promotion of this business. which was deleted without explanation by a previously unregistered user, who has also made no other contribution to Wikipedia. Kevin McE 20:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yuser31415 19:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a spin-off from Classical liberalism, consisting of short descriptions of Locke, Smith, Kant and Friedman, and little else. The problem here is that classical liberalism is a bitterly contested label, and the uncritical classification of these individuals as 'classical liberals' is also contentious. In addition, we already tackle this subject in depth at Contributions to liberal theory and Liberalism#Development of liberal thought. There seems little point in keeping this around as a seperate article. Nydas(Talk) 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Kant was a classical liberal or not is not up for debate, he unquestionably is a classical liberal. Only classical, again as the article suggests, because in the U.S. and Canada liberal has taken on a different meaning. Without such North American centric views it should actually read Key Liberal Thinkers, since Kant is, without a doubt, a liberal.
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:04Z
Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 21:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:02Z
Does not assert notability of person. The band also seems less than notable. Wikipedia is not MySpace. This has the distinct feeling of trying to promote the album currently in production. PigmanTalk to me 21:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:01Z
I originally prodded this memorial page, but the tag was removed by its creator, Esalibi (talk · contribs), whom I warned about the prod. In keeping with policy, I have decided to open this debate. Delete as nom (A7); Google only gives 3-4 exact results with this doctor's name, and the page also strongly reeks of WP:Vanity. Based on the user name and the article title, the editor must be a relative of the subject in question. Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 21:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yuser31415 19:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
total cruft, I mean, this is a page, in an encyclopedia, on how to get on a game show? Violates much of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information based on acting as a how-to guide. Had prod, but was removed without reason by editor. Booshakla 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Homeopathy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:00Z
Two known POV splits from Homeopathy with very little of note that can be said about them. NNeither have been worked on significantly since the split (unlike the seperately-nominated Classical homeopathy.
I've done a little editing to remove their worst parts. Clinical homeopathy was the worst, praising three homeopaths to the sky (reference: themselves) and containing this bizarre little non-sequitor: "Books which describe clinical conditions could be used by both clinical and classical homeopaths, the clinical homeopath will value its worth just more." [64]
Complex homeopathy merely contained unbacked assertions about one Homeopath, an A. Vogel, mixed in with assertions of the common use of lengthy German terms that is not backed by the evidence of Google. For instance, searching for the supposedly common Laienhomöopathie, specifying English-only, gives only that wikipedia page [65] It is only slightly commoner in German.
Pretty clear delete. Adam Cuerden talk 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion by admin DragonflySixtyseven as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 13:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person isn't actually notable - this is a c+p job from her website with something added about an article she's recently written in a college newspaper. MarkRTaylor 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 23:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article about lawyer; kind of asserts notability but doesn't establish it; unsourced. NawlinWiki 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was supposed to have been written for the biography section as this is a biography and not a promotion of the attorney. (How can this be resubmitted as a bio and not an article?) There are plenty of sources for establishing claims cited within the article. Relevant outside sources have been cited to back the claim re: his contributions to the SRI, CSR, and ESG fields of work. Maleopold 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Maleopold[reply]
The result was no consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted this after it had been prodded. The rationale for deletion was "Does not meet WP:MUSIC. A Google search turns up several other Jackie Barnes but only a passing mention of this one in an article about his father."
This was contested after the deletion, with the arguments that "There are some factors that show he is eligable to have his page re loaded. He sung a duet on the Double Happiness album by Jimmy Barnes. That album debuted at number 1 on the Australian charts. The song from the album "same woman" has been on rotation in radio in australia as well as in many cd stores around Australia. He has toured internationally as a drummer with Jimmy Barnes. The band has toured UK, Europe, Asia, Australia and New Zealand. these have been reported in newspapers etc. He is currently recording the new Jimmy Barnes album, and has done some writing for the new Living Loud album with Steve Morse and Bob Daisley. His website shows the 20 albums he has appeared on as a soloist and drummer. In the children's group The Tin Lids, they were nominated for the ARIA award for Best Children's album, I believe it was 1992 or 93. There are plenty of recordings on his site available to listen to and youtube videos."
I undeleted it and brought it here to get a wider input Trebor 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster DXRAW 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Wizardman 05:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is either non-notable, or original research, or a dicdef. Not sure which, but I don't think it's encyclopaedic. DWaterson 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. By the looks of things, this one just gets over the line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, due to insufficient non trivial, verifiable sources. Bus stop 23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 03:56Z
A subset of a subset of a subset. Under 300 members and no evidence of any significnance outside the Mennonite commuinity. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE, unfortunately. The article's a mess. All of the Keep votes noted that the article needs major work, generally pruning. There were some comments suggesting a split (of the potheads) or a merge, but not significant support for those solutions. I will now proceed to prune the article with a vengeance, as everyone agrees that that is a condition of it being kept. No prejudice against a renomination if the article doesn't soon figure out what it wants to be and moves in that direction. Herostratus 03:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list was nominated once before as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of iconic smokers. At the time, the article lookedlike this.
The final keep vote acknowledged the need for substantial cleanup. The top of the article begs for references on the hundreds of claims made below. On the talk page, the following comment sums up my impression of the situation:
== This article is a total disaster. == This article has got to the point where any celebrity who has been photographed smoking is included. "Tony Yayo"? I really have no idea who he is, he certainly doesn't belong in this "iconic" article alongside Bette Davis and George Burns. This article needs MAJOR pruning. PatrickJ83 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's throw this article in the ashtray. And while were at it, let's throw in
YechielMan 04:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't establish the notability of the subject or the company that the subject is the CEO of (Koolanoo.com, created by the same user, was speedied for lack of notability). It contains no sources. The author created an identical page (see below) and now an anonymous IP Address is maintaining them both.
Also listing: O.D. Kobo. Leebo86 23:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to University of the Philippines, from which it can be moved back into a separate article if anyone finds/adds sources. I believe that the correct procedure is to make the page a redirect, but if I'm in fact doing the wrong thing, let me know. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable single chapter of a fraternity. Only claim of notability is the "The Sigma Rho is the first and premiere law fraternity in Asia" statement, which is unsourced. -- Scientizzle 23:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]