User talk:Rovenhot

The Fairly OddParents Movie

According to the article itself, and some online searching, the movie is not in production, and won't be any time soon, if ever, so there's no reason it should have an article. —tregoweth (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia: Notability (films)#Unreleased films:

Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, articles on films that have not yet been publicly released (either theatrically or direct-to-video) are generally not appropriate unless the production of the film is itself notable in some way.

Factors to consider are:

Has the film actually entered production or is it just rumored or expected to be made?
Has the production of the film generated multiple, non-trivial news stories? In other words: Does the film already satisfy the primary criterion?
Will the film be notable upon release?

At a minimum, if Nickelodeon and/or Paramount haven't even announced that a movie is in the works, it doesn't qualify for an article. Rumors about a movie, or Butch Hartman having written a script, aren't sufficient qualifications for an article.

And, yes, there are articles about unreleased films, games, etc., but they've all been announced and/or are in production. —tregoweth (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Notability of Phαsor

A tag has been placed on Phαsor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 20:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Phalphasor

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Phalphasor, by Shadowlynk (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Phalphasor is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Phalphasor, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]