Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biophysicopsychoemotiointellectosociosexospirito


 * 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. SNOW close--clearly non-notable--if it were a bio, it would be CSD A7  DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Biophysicopsychoemotiointellectosociosexospirito

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable neologism (possibly WP:MADEUP), no occurence in the web (besides wikipedia-related), I could not verify the existence of the sources (and the article seems to have been deleted via prod before) Antipastor (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly not notable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, if not a hoax. Dr. Narag's books do not even appear in WorldCat. EALacey (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable neologism, supercalifragilisticexpialidociously silly. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as obviously not notable if it isn't actually a hoax. Adambro (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am copying the article author's opinion from the article talk page (admittedly his talk page might have been confusing with previous prod/csd tags, I also notified him): "Dear Wikipedia The article Ive wrote is based from books about the composition of man it is known as the biophysicopsychoemotiointellectosociosexospirito which is a combination of Biophysical psychoemotional, intellectual, social, sexual and spiritual aspect of man. It is written by a notable Doctor in our country and qouted by a lot of great speakers. I hope you will help me to improve my first contribution. Thank you and God bless" Antipastor (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am also nominating the following related pages because these are what appears to be the beginning of a WP:Walled garden about a non-notable (or possibly non-existent) person. :
 * MuffledThud (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete too as not meeting notability or verifiability guidelines (links in refs appear broken/incorrect too). Antipastor (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: per Ihcoyc,. Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are sources, but they appear to be 1) Wikipedia articles, or 2) self-published. I'm AGFing that this is a good faith attempt at an article, but it might be better as a userfied draft until better sources can be located. Delete, otherwise. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NEO. Warrah (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. But the first part of it.. "Biophysicopsychoemotiointellecto".. might get used in a Filipino remake of The Sound of Music... "even though the outcome of it was double-u p snow"  Mandsford (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. That's a plain hoax by someone with too much time on his hands. User234 (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Stuff like this degrades Wikipedia. Orthorhombic (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: too far from being supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Alexius08 (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete these two articles as per WP:NEO and WP:NN respectively. E Wing (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I saw it on new pages and it looked dodgy then... I'll ask the creator about this "doctor" kiwiteen123 (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2009 (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.