The result was delete as unsourced. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 13:33Z
No mention of notability for what seems like an independent model. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable record label. Page created by IP and some of the bands on the label were created by User:Unfun. Sure, some of the bands once on the label have gone on to better things on bigger labels, but Unfun is not notable by association. Furthermore, there are no references that could verify that those bands are even on the label. The article is spammy and another band on the label was deleted earlier for being non-notable (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Animal (band) for details). Fails WP:MUSIC. Rockstar (T/C) 07:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add my signature earlier, so I'll add it now.--queso man 20:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No appearance of being notable. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 01:44Z
IMDB entry aside, exactly why is this film notable? To quote User:Calton (who placed the notability tag on the page in October 2006: "What IS the point of this article? We're not IMDB Lite." Punkmorten 17:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 15:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completing a nom. Original reason for deletion in the talk page of the article. Tizio 10:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep mentioned in multiple reliable sources. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 13:36Z
A biography about an non-notable author/blogger. Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Sr13 (T|C) 05:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat spammy article on non-notable software. Contested prod. MER-C 04:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, mentioned in multiple reliable sources. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 13:39Z
Non-notable theologian and author per WP:BIO. I couldn't find anything on him in a quick Google News test, and the other sources I found (or that are cited) seem to fail WP:SPS.RJASE1 Talk 15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Driscoll is a well recognized name in church growth circles, has authored or co-authored four well received books in the past three years, and is recognized by many as a leader in the missional church movement. Some may not agree with him and he may not be notable as a theologian per se, but he is certainly not trivial in nature.Kwitt3 14:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)— Kwitt3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What are you talking about? Try your google news test again sir: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22mark+driscoll%22&btnG=Search+News forehand
According to WP:BIO "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject." Try checking the links listed on this person's page, and those of Mars Hill church. Also, try a Google search for "Mark Driscoll Mars Hill" and you will find an extensive amount of articles by reliable sources that do not fail WP:SPS.Squidge37 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bizarre RFD. Driscoll is highly notable, frequently noted and widely quoted. I can only assume that the RFD is from someone who merely disagrees with him ... but if that were a criterion for deletion, we'd have no Osama Bin Laden article!
Mark is an up and coming theologian... he seems to be hot at this point in time. You could delete him now... and add him back in when his bio gets larger. I was searching for information on Mark and found that this information was helpful. I would leave it up. Plenty of other sites have content on this individual... maybe Wikipedia is not the place to search for notable people? I am not slamming Wikipedia, I love this site. I just think that Mark is not defined by Mars Hill or Acts 29 entries. Thank you.
So, have we established that Mark Driscoll's page is not fit for deletion? The evidence seems to support this being unnecessary and unwarrented. Squidge37 15:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Razor (scooter). (I'm not in favor of redirecting to sections within articles, but if someone wants to change it, go ahead.) I have modified the target article, but really there was no new content. Speedy non-admin closure per WP:IAR. YechielMan 23:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent non-notable sports magazine; possible promotion of subject Askari Mark (Talk) 18:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arkyan • (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not establish notability, which makes sense because the newspaper is non-notable. I live in Salem, OR and I have never heard of it. Pablothegreat85 00:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (by consensus.) --Aarktica 12:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organisation. Pablothegreat85 00:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, misleading "references" are not references at all. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 21:32Z
I've searched the entire net for links to at least confirm the validity of this film, and found absolutely nothing. The only thing I could find was that "Robo" or more accurately "Robot" was the working title of Shankar's (apparently the director of the film), Anniyan. The entire page is filled with unconfirmed information. Also, all citations provided in the article are ALL fake. All of them lead to bogey links having nothing to do with the film whatsoever. The article may also be a candidate for speedy deletion. The creator of this article, User:Hedgehog Kanna may also be a sockpuppet of User:Prin who has been blocked countless times for abusive sockpuppetry. Therefore, I propose the article be deleted. -- Hariharan91 08:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep ~ AGK 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student-run radio station. None of the links listed do much along the lines of proving any notability-EMP 05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Coredesat 01:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This band doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC, despite having released numerous albums-EMP 05:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete no releases, fails WP:MUSIC. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 13:53Z
This is close to CSD A7: 52 Ghits. While the articles are not so badly written, little indicates their notability: the Ghits are concert announcements; their (AFAICT) first CD is not even released; their own website is under construction. Also included in the nom are band members:
Giulio Bonnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Šuligoj Roman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miloš Lozar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jože Skok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Duja► 10:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 03:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two notability tags, concerns never addressed. Being credited on album sleeves <> multiple non-trivial sources. Source it or lose it, I think. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge content merged into In the Court of the Crimson King article blanked and redirected to retain edit history as per GNU requirements. Gnangarra 04:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an artist who painted just one painting, and died at the age of 24 in 1970. He was also a computer programmer, although there is no indication whatsoever that anything he did in computer programming was notable in itself. Anyway, the painting in question just happens to be the cover art of the debut album of one of my favourite bands of all time, but I'm truly questioning how notable Barry Godber is going on this painting alone. Searching for his name minus the term "wikipedia" returns well under 1000 Google hits, which seem to be unofficial fan websites. Therefore he would not pass the notability guideline for biographies. Also, the article reads like a memorial, which is one thing that Wikipedia is of course not. However, if this does get deleted I will try merging the basic facts about him and the painting from this article to In the Court of the Crimson King. -h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to C. N. Annadurai. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:16Z
No assertion of notability. Books are not inherently notable and this does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability for books Hnsampat 12:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, unsourced, POV, fails WP:LIST. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 13:57Z
Indiscriminate and problematic list with subjective inclusion criteria. There is no connection between the actors on this list appearing on The X-Files and subsequently appearing in other TV series or films. Also, when is an actor considered "famous" enough to be included? And what about actors who were already successful when they appeared on The X-Files? Masaruemoto 19:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN identity service Computerjoe's talk 20:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to John Piper (theologian). —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:16Z
This organization/book has no notability of its own, outside of the notability of the author/founder, John Piper (theologian).RJASE1 Talk 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of a notability assertion to save it from a speedy by me, but AfD might delete it more gently anyway, perhaps... -Splash - tk 22:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete A7. Daniel Bryant 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things you made up in school one day. Selket Talk 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No relevance, there are hundreds of towers like this one. --Elsm 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article appers to be about fictional or unknown artist. Google request spelling mistake, and only solid references on You Tube and MySpace. Also note "comical" wording of article and age of artist. Has apparently made no achievments. --Jimmi Hugh 01:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
154 foot tall pylon --Elsm 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Xdamr. MER-C 04:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Auto dealership. Claim to fame is being the 5th Ford dealership in the US which I suppose is something but I doubt that we can find much in the way of significant third-party coverage to have the article progress past a perma-stub. (Of course, I don't mind being wrong!) Pascal.Tesson 01:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arkyan • (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for CSD A7 speedy deletion by User:82.36.96.123, and then tagged for PROD by him when I removed the speedy tag on the grounds that there is an assertion of some notability. Reason given for proposed deletion: "barely notable, no reliable sources". I'm dithering a bit on this one: I dispute the no reliable sources claim (half the article is backed up by his biography on the University of Birmingham's website, the other half by an article from Sinclair User magazine). But the notability is borderline - he doesn't meet WP:PROF guidelines from his academic activities, but he wa sa major contributor to the ZX Spectrum, and did found a (not-particularly-successful) company Jupiter Cantab. --Stormie 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No overall relevance. There are dozens of military radio relays in Germany and probably thousands in the whole world. --Elsm 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete A7. Daniel Bryant 10:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable indivdual. I could find no mention of him in sources considered adequate for establishing notability. Mmoyer 02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This has been quite the parade of socks and spas. It goes without saying that "its interesting", "I like it" and "its true" are not good reasons to keep content. The fundamental concerns of those arguing for deletion have not been met. Innacurate media reports are common to news that emerges shortly after major incidents. Discussion of such reports relating to the massacre (and in particular those of Michael Sneed) has not taken place in multiple reliable sources such that an article can be based around them. Those who are not just passing through that advocate keeping do so mainly on a "wait and see basis" but one can just as easily wait until a topic has become notable before covering it- indeed that is our standard practice. There are also valid WP:BLP concerns about an article which, even with a substantial rewrite, still emphasises the error of one person who is not otherwise notable.
The tenor of this debate is fundamentally in favour of deletion. The matter would appear from the discussion to deserve a brief mention at Virginia Tech massacre if anything. WjBscribe 01:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not a bio of columnist Michael Sneed, but is being used as a forum for constant revert wars regarding her coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre; Delete --Mhking 02:26, 19 April 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)) . |
We have every reason to keep this post, because it's a fact. We don't need to talk about the behavior of Mrs. Sneed, however, this post can be a learning material for the future journalist/editors.
But the truth of the matter is: one shall not duck from reality. And to faithfully keep a factual record of what had happened as a significant news event, is the very lesat we should do. --Ww2007april 04:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia allows recording of all kinds of pop songs, TV series, moveis in US, no matter how trashy they are. And now you guys call an incident which impacted more than 1 billion of people as "nonnotable". I can't find another better example of hypocrisy. Come on, what are you afraid of?
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable motorcycle club. There is one article in a local weekly paper about the club itself. The other refs only peripherally mention the club in support of an injured rider. Mmoyer 02:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy redirect to Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre. This article was begun as a bogus copy & paste "move" of Michael Sneed (AfD discussion) (itself since renamed) when that was nominated for deletion. There is no reason to have two deletion discussions for the same thing. The usual, long-standing, procedure for cases where articles are copied during an AFD discussion is to simply include the copied articles under the same AFD discussion umbrella as the originals. I am therefore speedily closing this discussion. Please contribute to the discussion of the original article, rather than this 11-edit copy. Uncle G 13:06, 19 April 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)) . |
article is serving to provide forum-like material in terms of arguing for/against columnist Michael Sneed and Chicago Sun-Times coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre. Violates WP:POINT, WP:N, and arguably other WP guidelines; Delete Mhking 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
└Jared┘┌talk┐ 03:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by AuburnPilot. Daniel Bryant 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologisms unfortunately require full deletion process, i would advise speedy deletion though --Jimmi Hugh 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is just a table, with less than 20 edits over almost three years. Simply not an article. I read the previous AFD which happened a year ago, and in my opinion it was weak - weak nomination, and weak arguments for keeping the article (and notice how all the keep votes have a little "needs work" or "please expand" thrown on there). If you don't vote delete, at least vote merge to somewhere, because this little blurb of information should not get its own article - there's just not much there, even after about 3 years. →EdGl 03:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an encyclopedic topic. Lest we forget, Wikipedia is not a repository of every minutae of human existence. Salad Days 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Gnangarra 04:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has two sources, one which discusses the temr and the author (Cormac Cullinan) but does not explicitly discuss the book, the other does not mention the title at all. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a magic 8-ball. Contested prod. MER-C 03:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Marskell 17:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsensical Biography. Original put up for Speedy given it makes no reference to achievements and is clearly non-notable. Was asked to move to AFD by admin though --Jimmi Hugh 04:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per consensus of established editors. --Coredesat 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sanitation manager of Midway City, California, popn 15k. A backroom bureaucrat for Westminster, California's council, popn 88k. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Member of a school district board. Not notable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Member of a school district board. Advert. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A board member on a school distrcit. Not notable, and reads like spam.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, all of the keep arguments are by the same editor. --Coredesat 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A councillor in Westminster, California, population 88,000. Not notable, and reads like spam.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A councillor in Westminster, California, population 88,000. Not notable, and reads like spam.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a lyrics database—arf! 06:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:22Z
Previously determined to be non-notable and deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Morgenstern qwe 06:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. "10 lines of text get you a working spam page, but everything written for you, can be 100% deleted." —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 14:03Z
WP:SPAM, reads like a brochure and it's nn. the_undertow talk 06:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Marskell 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another case of using a magic 8-ball, which Wikipedia is not, as a basis to write an article. Contested prod. MER-C 06:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Betting pool. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:26Z
First of all, I was the original author of this article. The entry is necessary and quite valid. In fact, the sports lottery entry was a great addition to wikipedia. Sports lottery is a term that is used by a large number of people all across the world.
The fact that it has been nominated for deletion shows the obvious disregard for improving the article. It simply proves that the person who has suggested deletion has been blinded by his own anger and hatred of pointshavers.com. If you look at the history of this article, the general tone of the edits has been opposition to the website pointshavers.com and not the entry itself. It's really a shame that someone would propose to delete an entry that is quite relevant to wikipidia.
Now, I have been very open to improving the article contents. I have, in fact, responded to others who have made suggestions on the content of the article and I will continue to do so. I have run out of time at the moment to comment on the article contents. I will do so shortly.
Article subject is entirely redundant to betting pool, it even says sports lottery is simply another term for football pool which also has its own article. I redirected it, but the original author reverted it, apparently to spam the entirely unnotable pointshavers.com domain which is ludicrously mentioned as an example. That site doesn't even have 300 online mentions of any kind. The author has also claimed "ownership" of the article. The article should be deleted and redirected to the betting pool article. I have already moved the usable text over there. 2005 07:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Gnangarra 05:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Company does not meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP. The website is what is a "skin" into the actual poker room, owned by Boss Media. If Boos Media had an article this would have been redirected there, but there currently is no Boss article. There are hundreds of these minor skins around, but currently articles only cover the companies who own the actual cardrooms. Besides that, Poker heaven isn't totally trivial but it is not very unique in and of itself. 2005 08:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{subst:ab))
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:29Z
Well written but ultimately non-notable band article. The EP release had only a total of 50 copies created and the album has yet to be released. No claims of online fame and only source is the groups own myspace. Also nominating derivitive album articles. –– Lid(Talk) 08:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this web site meets the notability guidelines at WP:WEB FisherQueen (Talk) 09:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This group appears not to meet the notability standard FisherQueen (Talk) 09:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Kevin Sterne. Please do not modify it. The result was redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. 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. |
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Alastair Cooper. Please do not modify it. The result 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 Keep per consensus PeaceNT 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
subject doesn't meet WP:BIO, article fails WP:ATT, requests for third-party references and to establish notability have simply been removed from the article without correcting the problem, subject gets less that 200 Ghits after excluding Wikipedia mirrors: Delete. Jefferson Anderson 20:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Gnangarra 05:48, 27 April 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)) . |
This isn't an encyclopedia article, its a list of non-notable events in an online game. No sources so completely unverifiable, amounts to original research. Original prod notice removed without comment Gwernol 20:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we do keep this article, how should we improve it?--Coin945 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pure speculation misleadingly presented as fact, request for reputable sources (indeed any sources) has failed. Delete Flapdragon 10:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 15:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college football player without sources Thomas.macmillan 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasDelete while there are some very forcefully put statements for keeping the article notability hasnt been established from reliable, independent sources. Gnangarra 05:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. Subject has not been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Only sources are from show rundowns and other sources within the Howard Stern universe. —Ocatecir Talk 04:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria probably merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. Editors evaluating an article should assume that adequate research will support notability.[15]
The result was Keep per consensus PeaceNT 06:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to main article. Non notable.--Pigglywiggly30945 18:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 (group of people/web content with no assertion of notability). Tizio 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No claims to notability, much less so than some deleted articles (such as ED). ShlamHam 02:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Conquest. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:32Z
Completely non notable online game. ALthough the developer is not given in the article, it appears to be made by "Juggleware". Googling for Juggleware and Conqueror gives 5 Google hits[16]. The article makes no claims to notability, and no reliable independent sources to establish any could be found. Fram 11:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete nonsensical and implausible assertions of notability. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 14:07Z
Hoax. "He also enjoys a fine wine with his favourite meal: sauteed peasant child."? Come on. Lankiveil 11:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable pro-wrestler. Very few Google results, more of which talk about an autistic seven-year-old than about this wrestler. Lankiveil 11:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like complete nonsense (and nothing comes up on Google). I've resisted speedy deleting because I want to be sure. Waggers 12:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:33Z
Non-notable NGO. A measly 4 ghits, and no external sources I can find that would indicate notability. Lankiveil 12:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete we don't accept advertisements here. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 14:10Z
Autobiographical promotion of a company. LittleOldMe 12:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 15:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: "it is unsurprising that the work, and particularly its first movement, should frequently appear in works of popular culture. This article is a listing of these appearances." Basically then, it could be re-named List of references to the Moonlight Sonata in popular culture, this is clearly an unmanageable list, that has a virtually unlimited number of potential items. The article appears to attempt to list every single time the piece is used as backround music in television, movies and video games, as well as every musical piece it has inspired. In addition, not a single item is sourced. Dr bab 12:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the claim that most or all of the statements in this article are "unreferenced" is deeply unconvincing. If you recognize the Sonata's music in a full performance, you can recognize a quotation of it elsewhere; pointing this out is not an original hypothesis of a kind that requires further referencing.
Major allusions, direct quotations, and derivative works by major artists of the Sonata probably belong in the article on the Sonata itself. If consensus can't be mustered as to which works deserve that sort of exposure, this should be kept. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only source is from a messageboard, and it was never even released. Joltman 12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:PORNBIO; most likely created for promotion, given the contribs of the article creater Wclearwaterxxx (talk · contribs) and their sockpuppets Oliverbonexxx (talk · contribs) and Steveoholland (talk · contribs). Prod removed without comment by Clearwater. Natalie 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep especially after the improvements by Nick mallory. I am declining Bduke's suggestion to list this version in a separate AFD because the girl is nonnotable, and the article would fall under CSD A7. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 07:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page fluctuates between being an inherently unnotable child, and an Australian lady cricket player with practically no info on her. Either can we decide to keep one, or get rid of them both (Or, of course, split them up into a disambiguation page). USernamezz 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Gnangarra 07:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This kind of info would be good for a Chaser Wikia, but not for Wikipedia Chuq (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:34Z
It's a common enough colloquialism, but this article is completly OR and unreferenced. Mikeblas 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep is the consensus, now with a release date confirmed, though the source isnt exactly WP:RS. Gnangarra 13:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believed to be the second single off of the new Nine Inch Nails album Year Zero. Was tagged for speedy, but speedy was invalid, and now we have some prod warring, so moving here. No clue whether this will really be the second single, but if it is, it's entirely likely to be recreated if deleted anyway. This is simply procedural for the sake of avoiding an edit war between two other parties, so I'm abstaining. badlydrawnjeff talk 13:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was "No consensus" last time, but after this AFD can I request that we reconsider. Mr Bustin is no more notable, nor more likely to be actually elected than Mr Cooper. Mais oui! 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Easiest WP:SNOW ever. Everybody apart from nominator advocates keeping or merging (which are essentially the same outcome). kingboyk 13:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Virginia Tech Massacre was not a war, and it definitely effect no one on a major scale. To take it this much out of context compeltely undermines the meaning of out many other good articles. All this information can be found by looking at either the Cho page of the Virginia Tech massacre page, it definetly does not need a seperate timeline, this serves no purpose but to make the event look far more importatnt than it is. Unless of course you plan on making a timeline for every event that caused a group of people to die? Perhaps for every group of iraquirs killed during the "Oil War" or perhaps one for each group killed by a bomb? Of course this was sarcasm, they are notable for only a single page on the more major topic also. --Jimmi Hugh 14:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arguments about numbers aside, we can't have articles without reliable third party sources. This is based on policy: no original research, verifiability, and attribution. --Wafulz 12:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability, only sources provided are primary or fan sites, Fails WP:WEB. DarkSaber2k 14:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very easy to tag AFD without considering an articles contribution. Also if this is not considered notable than about 80% of the other entries in the category browser based games should also be deleted, and that would be silly, becuase there is a place for a NPV source on such matters. There seems very little reason to delete a pretty well written and interesting article. The points made for the first afd debate are still valid, and player numbers have risen substantially since then [[18]]. Well whatever. Bjrobinson 13:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -> Its a very well-written, objective, account of the game. Third-Party sources are not availible for games like inselkampf. This is because no-one writes books and rarely Magazine entires that couldnt be described as Fan-based. You might say that thats a reason for deleting it, but its not making any unfounded claims. If you could please pick out a particular piece that needs changing or verifying then i will do that. It would be incredibly rash and ill-judged to delete such a promising article. The speed of these replies should also indicate just how widely read this article is.EdPethick 16:27, 20 April 2007 — EdPethick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:36Z
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completing a nomination. Original reason (from talk page) follows. Tizio 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This listing should be removed for lack of citations and lack of notariety. One listing in a "best of the web" article does not constitute a Wikipedia reference because it is not solely an article about this one company. Further, just because a site artificially boosts their traffic via chep pop-up advertising so that their alexa rank looks high does not make them notable. Also, many, many people and other companies collect, buy, and sell props from even much bigger and better known movies than those listed here, but that doesn't make any of them notable. I can go down to the store and buy a poster for Star Wars and then sell it the next day too.... does that mean I am deserving of a Wikipedia listing? No! 61.7.158.230 10:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, no demonstation or assertion of notability. cjllw ʘ TALK 08:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an orphaned article, and its only content is about how this woman is related to several other people. None of the other people have articles except for Wilhelm I, alleged to have been the godfather of this woman's second child (I think that's what the article's saying, anyway). Some of this woman's family may have been notable, and the prod was removed with the statement that "members of notable families are usually considered notable," but my understanding of precedent is that being related to a notable person does not create notability (as seen in the many articles about children of celebrities that have been deleted). The references provided are one website and one book, which are both in German. Propaniac 15:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:37Z
As I already wrote a few weeks ago on the talk page of this article, this perl script can hardly be called notable. For starters, anyone could write it, it is quite simple; also, it has been downloaded about 1350 times in 13 months, which isn't very much. But most importantly, I can't find any external independent references to it. – gpvos (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:38Z
Non-notable project related to Magic: The Gathering online game. Prod removed without comment. Orphaned. Propaniac 15:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Toledo street party with no references. Prod (not by me) was removed without comment; prod reason was "A street party for a group of college students is of dubious notability. Even bigger parties, like Michigan State's notorious CedarFest, do not merit a Wiki page." Orphaned article. Propaniac 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of band names that contain the name of a back-up band, such as "Iggy and the Stooges." Indiscriminate information. Prod removed without comment. Orphaned article. Propaniac 15:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userfy and Delete. utcursch | talk 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent self promotion by User: Prashrb or possibly an impersonator. subject has limited notability --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - The article is not fit for inclusion in its present state. If it is possible to improve the article, it is best that a new author starts from scratch. - Richard Cavell 09:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable and unsourced legend. LittleOldMe 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted - unsourced biography of an essentially-living person objected to and deemed libelous by the article subject. FCYTravis 06:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn character, creator has said "contains a number of factual errors and also libelous statements." -- Zanimum 16:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 19:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement written in the first person. Google returns 796 hits. -Haikon 16:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suspect non-notable under WP:PROF. Can't find much in the way of publications. Listed as an instructor at a community college (not that there is anything at all wrong with that). No information given in article about notability, and request for such was placed on the talk page a while back. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Herostratus 22:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a directory. The store's own website is the proper place for this information Daniel Case 16:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK it was ever so slightly adapted into something more identifiable with the Singapore crowd. But does that make it notable. (Part of the NUS Scholars Programme.) -- RHaworth 16:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by The JPS. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text doesn't cite sources and does not indicate why this group of four students should be considered notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The author's wish to have "All Rights Reserved" is in conflict with the GFDL. Regards, High on a tree 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE ALL and redirect to Nightmare on Elm Street. Herostratus 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. Victim from Nightmare on Elm Street, "notable" for being Freddy's first. Not relevant enough for her own encyclopedia article. Major characters like Freddy and Nancy obviously deserve articles, minor victims do not.
I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar reasons of being non-notable characters.
I must note that I am tempted to nominate various other characters from Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street characters as much of them fit the same criteria, but I'll desist for now on account that most of them are somewhat major characters.--CyberGhostface 17:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:39Z
Mildly amusing surrealist hoax. Two refs have been added, but I am more convinced by what Google thinks. -- RHaworth 18:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, no relevant google hits. Nekohakase 18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable by virtue of lack of reliable, non-trivial, independent sources. Phrase returns many Google hits, but essentially all are promotional in nature and not independent. Article currently reads like an advertisement; without such independent, reliable sources it cannot evolve into a neutral, encyclopedic article. Propose deletion unless/until such independent, reliable secondary sources can be found. MastCell Talk 18:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Final Fantasy titles. The merge has already been done, if anyone feels there is more info that should be merged, it's still available in the history. Arkyan • (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN Webcomic. This is apparently an officially endorsed comic from Square Enix relating to Final Fantasy XI but, I don't think that can establish notability just yet, considering that the strip was only launched this week, and there's only one strip out. There is no way that we can support an article beyond a microstub from the available sources at this time. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP (redirect recommended). Nabla 03:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am renominating this page for deletion after the closure of a previous bundled nomination in this discussion where several editors indicated they wished the opportunity to individually considered. Since this page is nothing more than recounting of a particular chess opening, with no indication of any notability beyond that, I believe it violates WP:NOT#IINFO which is against instruction manuals. The article itself claims the analysis is on another page, Queen's Gambit Declined which really says nothing substantial more about it than it is a solid continuation. As there are literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of named and defined Chess openings, that isn't enough notability on its own. Thus I recommend it be deleted. Apologies if anybody considers this premature, but I am nominating this one article for consideration because it did receive some support for deletion and I think the previous bundled nomination was obvious a factor in it being kept. FrozenPurpleCube 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Has been userfied. Marskell 17:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, undocumented neologism. Delete per WP:NEO. Chardish 20:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was to delete the article.
I'd like to know what "awards" this reporter has won. No sources, just claims, and I personally don't think he's notable. Delete. JHMM13 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 23:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies to User:Bnseman, who means no harm, I nominate this article for seeming like an advertisement or fan mail, or at least not NPOV. The company has 35,000 Google hits, and the claims in the article may make it notable, but I'm far from certain whether it meets WP:CORP. YechielMan 05:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I suppose. Made the Inc. 500 and got written up in Inc., in American Executive, and elsewhere. Apparantly has a somewhat innovative business model, loan officers working from home. Herostratus 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by User:NawlinWiki. YechielMan 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears non notable and original research. No attempt has been made to establish notability beyond job title. Information is non encyclopedic. LordHarris 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep this content. Whether it should be merged or moved or just stay where it is at is an editorial decision and no consensus to merge/move was reached on this discussion. Arkyan • (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers a topic which is too narrow in scope. It is the work of a the NUS Scholars Programme, and while more than adequately referenced (actually a very good example of proper referencing), it still is a subject that is too esoteric and not notable enough to merit its own article. It reads more like a research paper, which is likely what it is. Realkyhick 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Walton Need some help? 18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this article should be deleted because it is blatant advertizing with misleading or incorrect statements Vancouverlaw 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jreferee 06:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another effectively abandoned pop culture article. This one has a reasonable format I tried to impose on it a while back, with very limited annotations of items... however, the extreme lack of worthwhile items leads me to believe we shouldn't bother with an article here. The most important item, by far, is the reference to Beelzebub in the title of Lord of the Flies, but even that item doesn't have much importance to Beelzebub, although it's important to the book article. The rest are just not important to the topic of Beelzebub at all. The inclusion is pretty indiscriminate, too: apparently any mention of "Beelzebub" qualifies for inclusion on the list, as does any mention of a word that might be based on "Beelzebub". Mangojuicetalk 13:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 07:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable local character (i.e., crazy person); no sources. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:41Z
The term "Parycopsis" occurs only in three related WP articles and nowhere else on the web: Parycopsis, Wraith, Pa-rahn heku. These references are mutually self-supporting but there's no other evidence for the existence of "Parycopsis" or its synonym "Pa-rahn heku". It's a hoax. andy 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Pa-rahn heku" occurs only in this article and one other, and nowhere else on the web. It's a hoax. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Parycopsis. andy 21:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Kudos to the editors for doing the work to source the article and establish notability instead of relying on someone else to do so. Arkyan • (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite sources and books, is non-notable. -- Jimmi Hugh 21:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment made by Dr. Nick Trakakis (April 23, 2007): It is difficult to understand the controversy surrounding the entry on William Rowe, for (i) this entry is well-written (although it does require expanding), and (ii) Rowe is widely recognized as one of the foremost contemporary philosophers of religion.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Useless fancruft. There are hundreds and hundreds of skills in EVE, and not much to say about any one of them individually. This is like having an individual page for every Magic card. Ashenai 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete consensus is for deletion with recreation if/when he plays at First Class level. Gnangarra 07:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A mere club cricketer at this stage with only junior representative honours and no first-class cricket experience. This article could be reproduced should he meet notability guidelines in the future Mattinbgn/ talk 21:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to I Love New York (TV series). Walton Need some help? 18:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt pick up more than 1,000 google hits. No avalible music. Only known for being on a show for 7 episode, not notable at all. Parys 18:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply inaccurate; NBC Universal has confirmed the remaining episodes for the third season of The Office, and this episode, which was made and remains without sources even proving it exists, is not on the list. Viewdrix 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Breaking (martial arts). WjBscribe 01:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is fairly bad, a pile of text concerning the "breaking of boards" as a feat of human strength, and mentioning one record-holder. The reason I bring this here is to see if anyone knows where it might be redirected. Delete it, otherwise. Xoloz 22:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable topic, pertaining to a mod used in a computer game. Verifiability won't save this article, either, it's textbook fan cruft. This information can serve best in another host such as a gaming guide or on the official website, not on a general reader's encyclopedia. With this being said, I understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It is also not a collector of indiscriminate information or a publisher of original thought. WaltCip 22:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I am unsure what the notability guidelines for skate parks are, this article does not provide any evidence of notability to support its claim to be "one of the best skate parks in Australia". Mattinbgn/ talk 22:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE with Shock site.Herostratus 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, uncited, contains some original research, and fails WP:WEB. --AAA! (AAAA) 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Bucketsofg 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of the previous four Afd’s, two were by sockpuppet accounts. The most recent nomination contained next to no arguments by an inexperienced editor and was judged as keep. The remaining afd was closed as keep due to the nomination being out of process, despite delete votes outnumbering keeps. As per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion I am renominating this article for further discussion.
Our aim is to explain complicated issues in an encyclopedic manner whilst attempting to be as neutral as possible. By having a page that discusses the Israeli-Palestine situation which is “Allegations of apartheid”, are we approaching that goal, or are we moving away from it? Are we creating a POV and content fork that aims to channel sentiment towards a certain conclusion that does not comply with the goals of a neutral encyclopedia. Does this title alone immediately distort analysis of a complex issue, and hence distort the content of the article itself making it inherently unencyclopedic and POV?
This article and other “apartheid” articles are nearly a year old. They have carried POV templates for much of their duration and have been in permanent dispute. Collectively the articles have been disputed by countless users – the majority in fact - from all corners of wikipedia and all political persuasions. Does this imply that wikipedia is succeeding in dealing with these topics in a satisfactory manner? Or does it show that these pages have failed to meet the aims of their creators and a change is necessary?
Some of the arguments presented in the past to keep these apartheid articles are that they are sourced, However we could source anything from Allegations that the U.S. is a fascist state to Allegations that Venezuela is an emerging Communist dictatorship to Allegations that Belgium is boring. So that doesn’t wash. See...
All of these articles could be as well sourced and as legitimate as Allegations of Israeli Apartheid.
Some of the arguments presented elsewhere have stated that this article is written with a balanced view in mind. Nearly a year of POV tags, heated disputes and numerous complaints from users from all corners of wikipedia tells a different story. People might argue that as it is a controversial topic - it will inevitably draw POV tags. But that should be a sign that we should redress our approach to these topics - not blunder on regardless with articles in disarray. When topics are under dispute - we should work hard to find solutions to these problems, not become entrenched in block votes and partisan game playing. As far as I can see, the game is up.
Solution: This article should be deleted. It is notable and important that we detail this issue which is that people refer to Israeli policies regarding Palestinians as “apartheid”. But there are neutral pages already created which can (and on some occasions do) detail and address this. They include;
At present I believe the structure of this article inherently fails WP:NPOV, and there is no solution other than to delete. The problems with this and other articles are not going to go away until this happens. -- Zleitzen(talk) 17:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's for that reason apart from any other that I've sometimes thought deletion would be the best course. The problem though, is that doing so effectively reinforces bad behaviour. If editors are to be rewarded for petulantly sabotaging articles they don't like, or by creating multiple examples of WP:POINT, where does it stop? After "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", which page will be targeted by such tactics next?
What I'm saying is that I think there's an issue of principle here. If the allegations themselves are notable enough to warrant their own page - and in this case I believe they are - then one cannot agree to deletion just because some editors apparently can't restrain their desire to try and undermine it. Gatoclass 05:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to favour the creation of Political status of the Palestinian people in Israel or something similar - Zleitzen
Comment In theory not a bad idea I suppose, but in practice, the vaguer the topic, the more subject the article becomes to bloat. This is especially true, I find, of articles on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, where everyone seems to want to have the last word.
I guess I might support a change in name of the article if a suitable name could be found, but I can see a name like "Political status of the Palestinian people in Israel" soon turning into a content jungle. Perhaps "Human rights of Palestinians under Israel occupation"? Something like that might keep the focus reasonably narrow. Indeed, it would probably enable getting rid of all the material in the article that is currently devoted to the apartheid analogy within Israel itself, which might be an advantage.
At the same time, it would allow for a seamless expansion of content into areas such as property law, home demolitions and other Israeli practices which may not strictly have been used in the apartheid analogy itself (although I'm sure they have been). Perhaps there could also be a companion article entitled "Human rights of Israeli Arabs" or "Human rights of minorities in Israel" dealing with the situation there.
Before I'd agree to such a name change though, I think it might be useful to have some sort of agreement with the regular pro-Israeli contributors about the content and structure of such an article. We really do need to avoid as many acrimonious disputes as we can manage, and a prior agreement might be a good way to achieve that. Gatoclass 01:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((Allegations of apartheid))Kritt 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A prod was removed for no good reason, so I decided to take this to AFD. This is pure fancruft/listcruft. Gameshow statistics and so on isn't a notable encyclopedia entry. As a note: several similar Deal or No Deal lists have been deleted in the past. This isn't any different from those, so this is no exception. RobJ1981 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The stats are from the show itself and this is for the record. Please reconsider. If you can't find any sources, go to YouTube!. - 上村七美 | talk 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced, weasel words, and a kick in the gonads and a disallowed goal does not make a rivalry. Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 23:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.britishcouncil.org/japan-sport-footballculture-teams-alliance-2.htm http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2069994,00.html From an English perspective: http://portugal.worldcupblog.org/group-d/mission-england.html I hope that you will try to keep this article. Wwicki 14:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Place appears not to exist. Suspected HOAX. Note that per Eastmain, http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic does not have a listing for Heford, New Hampshire. --Shirahadasha 00:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heford, New Hampshire and Heford Harrington High appear not to exist (See companion AfD for town). Suspected HOAX --Shirahadasha 00:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ip contribution have not been discounted. However, this is not a vote; the arguments made by those contributing here on the basis of "what about article x" and the failure to address policy and guideline issues, have been discounted.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged this for ((notability)) yesterday but the tag was simply removed by the original author a few hours later with no new claims of notability made (and I suspect, though can't actually prove, that said author is the subject himself). Run-of-the-mill local radio announcers are not notable. Delete. Bearcat 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]