The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 00:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This article is written like a personal essay. Furthermore, no references are provided. Like many "in popular culture" entries: not verifiable and mostly trivial. Tomj 22:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge→Joker (comics). The question of whether or not to do a selective merge can be handled after the fact through cleanup of the content after merger. Though the main consensus is for merge and cleanup is a good idea, it's not part of the expressed consensus ... but I will nonetheless place a modified version of Template:cleanup-afd on the section arising from the merger to direct editors here to consider the cleanup commentary. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A trivial list that could easily renamed "Non-notable appearances by the Joker". The content is not substantial enough to warrant it's own article. The article itself is a stub and most likely cannot be expanded beyond it's current state. The Filmaker 22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted Was speedy deleted. Non admin close --Longing.... 23:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zero google hits for "a film reel named emotion". No claims of notability. It's too bad we can't speedy things like this. Corvus cornix 22:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-existent episode of a cartoon. Only source to this article is a fansite, which is hardly reliable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be either an example of crystalballery or a hoax. I have been unable to find any reference to the title of this supposed new album online, nor have I been able to verify any of the information presented in the text. http://www.michellewilliamsonline.com/ mentions only that a new album is 'coming soon'. Kurt Shaped Box 21:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to contributors/closing admin - this article has recently been moved unchanged to Michelle William's third studio album. --Kurt Shaped Box 08:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax. Googling for "michelle williams" "make him see me" returns nothing of relevance, other than the article itself and the Michelle Williams (singer) article. Kurt Shaped Box 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep ~Kylu (u|t) 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only the thinnest assertion of notability for this non-notable model. Deleted once after uncontested prod, but was shortly recreated. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails all criteria for inclusion, including WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:PORNBIO, etc. etc. Valrith 21:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Private online university without any claim to accreditation or notability. The article smells like spam, which is fixable, but the notability issue remains. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that accreditation is required. We have articles on a number of unaccredited institutions--some that have lost accreditation, some that have never been accredited--and for good reason, some that have chosen not to be accredited, such as some small bible colleges. The argument has been made that it is appropriate to have articles on the unaccredited, so people have the information. But in any case this college does claim to be accredited by the US Education and Training Council, which is a recognised US national accreditor for distance programs. [5]. It accredits schools of great variety, and is recognized by the WS DOE. (in the US, "regional" accreditors accredit conventional institutions, "national" ones accredit business schools and other for-profit entities. (The relationship between the two is not harmonious, and politics is very much involved.) The ETC accredits 5 non-US institutions among its 100--some specialized and respectable, some well known and controversial, most very obscure. The US DOE of course does not control the accreditation of non US institutions directly or indirectly, or authorize anyone to do so, and the ETC website admits as much & says the US authorization does not apply to these 5. The University also claims to have passed "the required validation procedure for the MBA program on September 29, 1999 to offer an MBA in New Brunswick.
Size does not matter, we have articles on schools considerably smaller than this.
This is one of a pair of institutions with the same name, apparently owned by the same company--the other one is in British Columbia, and has been closed by the BC government--the relationship is frankly put forth on the college's web site. (If I were looking for an online business college, this would be a rather conspicuous red flag.) The material has been systematically eliminated from the present article by 156.34.149.130--but it has also been inserted by someone with an obvious bias. If we have an article, it would need watching.
What we do need is reliable information to write an article, and this is the dubious part. The first 3rd party source is the paragraph on the accreditor's web site listed. I think it sufficient to prove existence, and to establish the address and the degrees offered, and that it has been listed since 1999. It does not prove notability. The 2nd source is inclusion in an article quoted on the university's web site from "BACK TO SCHOOL: Your guide to 16 of the country's best executive MBAs The Globe and Mail, September 30, 2006. [6] Whether this is selective I cannot tell--the others are mostly excellent well-known conventional universities. Normally, we'd consider that newspaper a reputable responsible source. I also found a profile in Business Week: [7] which at least documents the number of students at 238--it also documents an entering class of 12. It's based on info from the University, but Business Week has usually been assumed to be a RS. None of these actually show notability; they all count as directory information.
But it turns out there are 2 good CBC sources, one from 2001, [8], one from 2007 [9] Read them, & you'll see why those associated with the school did not list them in the article. DGG (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn: Found a source that asserts notability, nominator withdrew AfD. Non-admin closure --Longing.... 22:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable playwright, orphaned page, page created 08/29/2003 with the content "Sandra Dempsey is a Canadian playwright." and it has not changed since. -Old Hoss 21:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
was an expired prod which I deleted, author requested restoration so in effect a belated contested prod. In any event, it's still basically a visitor guide or directory, not notable, and not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 21:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. It looks like the general consensus is for delete, though a couple of folks advocate merging to Communists for Kerry (in fact, one delete comment effectively switched to a support for merger). As the article has been userfied, the content remains available to draw from for inclusion in that article without a formal merge; for reference, here is the permalink for the userfied content. A note on Wikipedia:userfication—this is typically done by creating a sub-page of the user page, though in some instances, such as this autobiographical one, the content can go on or as the user page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources at all from a search on Yahoo or Google. The one potentially reliable link on the article--the Village Voice--doesn't even mention him. Fails WP:BIO--possible WP:COI issue as well; author is Newyorklenin (talk · contribs). Blueboy96 21:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source from a Google search http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:WL7srgGUKbUJ:www.voideville.com/about.html+ivan+lenin&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=us&client=firefox-a
The Village Voice article has my photo and mentions me as "Ivan the Horrible" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorklenin (talk • contribs) 22:34, August 1, 2007
--Newyorklenin
The result was No consensus. One reference from a reliable source was presented during the discussion, which alleviates in part the concern about the article being unsourced, but cleanup is needed as mentioned in the discussion, and additional reliable sources are needed; thus I will add Template:refimprove. As part of closure I have a) added the single reliable source mentioned below to the article and b) removed the transwiki'd how-to section. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article, reads as a "how to" rather than an encyclopedia topic. The entire subject deals with a method proposed by a single book - as such, it is not even a notable neologism. Bigdaddy1981 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Carlossuarez46's argument shows convincingly that this is not a trivial article nor a loose collection of unrelated information, further comments reflect that as well. In a poorly written state, such things may be hard to discern (no doubt!) but there are at least promises to rework the article to address any remaining concerns. Cheers, WilyD 20:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of trivial appearances, with no greater context, unacceptable per WP:FIVE ("Wikipedia is not a trivia collection") and WP:NOT#IINFO Eyrian 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate list of trivia (WP:FIVE: "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection"), simply mentioning times the syndrome has appeared, with no reliable independent sources. Eyrian 20:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is blatant advertising -- two references are purely promotional, the other no longer exists. HalJor 20:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Fire sale. ELIMINATORJR 22:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability KMS 20:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was deprodded with an edit summary Large company, notable. There are no sources to establish notability in the article and when I prodded it a few days ago I did a search and couldn't turn up anything to satisfy WP:RS - just online shopping sites. I am no expert in the field but I cannot verify notability here. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, no consensus to delete. -- Visviva 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Collection of trivial uses, conveying no information about popular perceptions. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 19:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The result was Keep, unlike a lot of these articles this subject is notable for informing a large amount of fiction, often directly as opposed to tangentally. Some of the micro-trivia could usefully be stripped, though.ELIMINATORJR 22:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia grab-bag, often of bare-mention references, unacceptable under WP:FIVE, or WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy as spam but declined. Article is about a trademarked logo owned by a company with which the article creator is involved. No references and no real notability outside of this context. Article creator has also created articles about his own company (speedied for non-notability) and a client company (speedied as spam). --Finngall talk 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Long list of parodies, without any kind of cited analysis; References are merely locations of the primary sources from which these things come. Please note that attempting to establish popular perception by listing a number of unanalyzed entries constitutes selecting primary source documents to provide an overall impression, i.e. original research. Harry Potter is tremendously popular, and listing every one-off parody simply isn't encyclopedic. Eyrian 19:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
By your logic, there are no iterative steps. If you can't do the end goal immediately, then you shouldn't start. Can't storm Normandy 'til we've taken Berlin, eh? --Eyrian 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: It would appear to be too late to make this point, however I should at least say that the reason I decided to edit this article in the first place was to counter a vein of misinformation in the media concerning Harry Potter parodies. Lunatic absolute free speech campaigners (the kind who believe that strangers have every right to read our mail) and anti-Potter vitriolics out to find whatever stick they can to beat the franchise have spread rumours that Harry Potter parodies have been deliberately suppressed by Rowling's lawyers, which is, they sternly admonish, against the law. These rumours have some basis in fact. A Russian author named Dimitri Yemets wrote a series of books called Tanya Grotter that he attempted to have published in Europe. Rowling's lawyers said no, as they were transparent Harry Potter knockoffs. Yemets argued that they were parody, and thus permitted under copyright. A team of Dutch lawyers examined the books, determined they were not parody, and forbade the books from being sold outside Russia. The books are bestsellers in Russia and Yemets is now a wealthy man. That's all that happened. As the article demonstrates, permitted parodies of Harry Potter are, in most cases, legion, and indeed the Barry Trotter series has sold almost a million copies. Another thing I wanted to highlight was the impact Harry Potter parodies have had on the Christian right in the United States, as they have fueled their lunacy over the books promoting Satanism. Serendipodous 08:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe it could do with a trim, not every Harry Potter mention in media needs to be listed, but full actual dedicated parodies deserve a space.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.103.115.44 (talk • contribs).
Comment: As per this crusade of Eyrian's, there are only two acceptable outcomes: either every list on Wikipedia should go, or none of the lists should go. I have already mentioned that this list shares flaws with plenty of feautred lists. If he's willing to delete this list than he should be just as willing to delete them as well. Yet Eyrian is currently unwilling to challenge them. This is cowardly. If he has a problem with lists, he should take it up with the Wikipedia heirarchy and make a ban against any and all lists. This piecemeal attack on individual lists is underhanded and unfair. Serendipodous 09:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the reasons for deletion that I see here a glaringly faulty. This is obviously not OR at all. It has sources all over the place, not personal interpretations. The nom's interpretation of this article seem to violate NPOV, to me. If the editor thinks the article's existence violates POV, I fail to see how. Harry Potter is parodied everywhere because of its popularity. There a plenty of sources in the article, and everything seems pretty well-balanced. As for analysis, if it had analysis it wouldn't be a list, now would it? Lists don't require that sort of thing. If someone wanted to write an article about it, then they would have to provide analysis, but to demand it here under penalty of deletion is unreasonable. Unless a more reasonable and solid reason for deletion is put forward than "It's not an FA" and this false OR accusation, I see no reason for deletion. Lastly, to call this "fancruft" is a bit short-sighted given the huge influence of these books on the reading world. To ignore that effect as fancruft would be to ignore an important part of our culture. Wrad 18:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence on Google that this person exists. Can someone find a reference? If not, I'm afraid deletion is the Plan B. Note to the faithful deletion sorters: Please add this to the Korea-related deletions. Shalom Hello 19:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, no consensus to delete. There is a slight majority of users arguing to delete; however, the arguments on both sides are of reasonable strength and the dispute over encyclopedic merit should therefore be addressed through the editing process. -- Visviva 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unacceptable trivia, per WP:FIVE (or WP:NOT#IINFO if you prefer). Eyrian 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete as copyvio (CSD G12). Sorry, policy trumps consensus. —Kurykh 22:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this list from Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and someone placed a PROD tag, invoking Wikipedia is not a directory. Normally I would agree, but precedent has made Category:Lists of postal codes an exception to this rule. For a previous deletion debate on a similar article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Nepal. Shalom Hello 18:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. This collection of every time someone spots a beagle on TV or in a book or movie tells us nothing about beagles, nothing about the fiction in which the beagle appears and nothing about the world around us. The things have nothing in common past the presence to a greater or lesser degree of a particular kind of dog. Otto4711 18:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Article asserts notability but provides no reliable secondary sources in support of assertions. Editors commenting here have not been able during the AFD discussion period to verify the claims by on-line searches. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be about a non-notable person; I can find nothing on google to back it up anyway: [15]. The Evil Spartan 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC) The Evil Spartan 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was speedied by myself once before, and restored by Gwalla. I spoke to him/her about it, and agreed to AfD this article. Anyway, I digress. The article passes WP:BAND, but is not notable and has no reliable sources. Thanks. —« ANIMUM » 18:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understand that that is merely what I found in the last ten minutes... with a bit of looking I could certainly find more sources besides these. ... but anyway, can't we wait for the album to come out? = ∫tc 5th Eye 00:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete the first, prod the second. Sr13 is almost Singularity 05:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can find little to nothing of this man on google: [18]. I tried speedy delete - was turned down. Appears to have WP:COI problems. The Evil Spartan 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable student invented celebration. google search for "Monkey Day" + december 14 shows no reputable references `'Míkka 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus It is clear that all parties are thinking non-trivially about this article. It occurs to me that there are a number of other solutions than those that were expressed during this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mere list of links without any criteria for inclusion, and is not useful for navigation. This would be much better served with a category than an article. Phirazo 18:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, has been transwikied. Content can be accessed at wiktionary:Transwiki:List of isms. -- Visviva 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order. Can someone tell me why this is a Science and Technology AfD? Perhaps it is no surprise why no one understands the usefulness of this list?
I move that we go through the process appropriately. If there is a humanities and fine arts category, lets see how the AfD proceeds under it. Gregbard 09:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Nonencyclopedic: an arbitrary list of totally unrelated things. Its place is an appendix of wiktionary. `'Míkka 18:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as failing WP:N (specifically WP:CORP), WP:V, and WP:RS. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to meet WP:CORP notability guidelines. Also, article was created by a member of the OpenSER development group which also is against WP:COI (conflict of interest) guideline. Calltech 13:38, 26 July 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)) . |
To prove the notability of the project I list few links and articles about OpenSER, from neutral sources:
The level of innovation brought by OpenSER in Open Source VoIP is another important criterion that should keep the article posted. Some unique values: Java SIP Servlet application server (WeSIP), VoIP Perl Application Server, Infrastructure Enum, many VoIP Presence extensions, SIP IM Conferencing.
I can assist further if you consider that more arguments are needed. I kept the content of the page quite minimalistic so far, to avoid the feeling of self promoting the project (cleanup and improvement in the content toward neutrality and usability of the page was done since its first version). There is a lot that can be included, in terms of innovations, capabilities and usage cases in area of communication technology. I hope that the chances to keep OpenSER page are higher now. Daniel-Constantin Mierla (talk/work) 10:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC) — Miconda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
OpenSER is an important open source project that is making a significant impact on the telecom industry. An OpenSER entry needs to stay in Wikipedia. However, I agree that the original OpenSER entry did not read as a neutral article. I have edited the OpenSER entry and I believe it is now acceptable for Wikipedia's guidelines.
Thank you for the guidance on how to leave a signature. I am not a member of the OpenSER project, but two developers who work for me at TransNexus have contributed to OpenSER. Our customers are VoIP service providers and they use TransNexus software with their OpenSER deployments. JPDaltonJr 14:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpenSER is a critical building piece of a Voice over IP infrastructure. Many companies using the software provided from this project to build services that are valuable for millions of customers. Wikipedia includes many articles over open source projects thats have a much smaller impact. Henning
This project is one of the leading open source, completely free SIP server applications. It is a core component in many of the worlds largest IP telephony solutions, supporting millions of users across the world. Many companies openly acknowledge its use in their networks, including Truphone the UK-based Mobile VoIP provider, Truphone. I am a VoIP engineer who works with OpenSER and other related applications on a daily basis to provide IP telephony solutions. Adam — 80.169.36.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Carlosguitar 03:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpenSER is part of the history of Internet Communications, a core part of how FWD works and a platform/technology that is enabling and empowering the world of open communications. There are undeniable truths. Signed, JeffPulver
((subst:ab))
The result was No Consensus.. CitiCat ♫ 03:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert subjects notability - no references, only external links to his official site, myspace page and an interview. Does not meet the requirements at WP:Notability. Ozgod 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. To the anon, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Kurykh 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally tagged for speedy as spam. Reads like spam, but as it's a quasi-EU gov't program, it might be notable. Rather than speedy, I thought I'd seek a wider consensus. However, for my part, unless someone can come up with refs that demonstrate notability, I'm for deleting it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The project will soon have a website, eTEN is for sure an EU programme, and it will be very usefull for Tourism Industry in Europe, as it will provide e-services to SMEs.(81.188.78.115 11:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 03:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, contrary to false claims of being one of "South Africa's foremost families.". No verifiable sources. NPOV violations. Non-verifiable and uses original research. ProudlySA 09:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This individual seems to be some author however upon googling him I can't find any sources that could be used for it due to lack of notability. The page exists on a few other languages of wikipedia however even they are uncited and seem to be tossed together haphazardly. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a market stall with no references provided to establish notability. --Uthbrian (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus ... split among Keep, Delete and Merge. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is about squatters in Geneva who just got evicted after occupying a building for 19 years. It is currently making headlines in local newspapers, but I don't think it is notable enough for inclusion, especially since there are 1000s of other buildings squatted around the world, and it is hard to see what would make this one different from others. More precisely, I think it could be added to a page about Squatting in Switzerland, or even Squatting in Geneva if there is enough to say on this particular topic, but it may not deserve an article for itself. Schutz 11:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete for now. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I wish it was true, this appears to be a hoax: it claims "official" recognition yet there is no news report or government coverage, and there are no references except for a URL that doesn't go anywhere in a domain whose whois is hidden. Marnanel 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close, CSD G4. --Eyrian 17:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Neologism, with no reliable sources to document the significance of the term. Eyrian 17:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The result was Speedy delete CSD A7. Jackaranga 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already deleted as ((db-a7)). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM, WP:VERIFY Jackaranga 17:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears notable just for discovering one singer in Canada, Lavigne. I just did a bunch of searches for him, and all of them are apparently about that. Not sure its worth an article for some guy that found a girl that has had an average singing career. Delete... Freedomeagle 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not seem to pass WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC or WP:PROF. Nearly everything stated is verifiable only with self-published sources (online from Fink's personal website, or in print published by Fink himself). He appears to have made some perhaps notable contributions to discussions about the bone found at the Divje Babe site (nothing published in peer-reviewed publications by himself, though), but this is mentioned at sufficient length in that article. EldKatt (Talk) 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 22:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY, maybe WP:SPAM. I had used PROD but it was removed without any contributions addressing the issues. Jackaranga 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep Dinosaurs and Stegosaurus as it's acually sourced prose with few pure trivia, delete and move to a subpage of User:AndyJones on the rest. Jaranda wat's sup 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - these are all directories of loosely associated topics, presented for the most part as bullet point lists but sometimes masking the bullet point "I spotted a dino!" references in prose. Yes, everybody loves dinosaurs and they show up in lots of movies and TV shows. Itemized lists of every appearance of dinosaurs or a specific species of dinosaur or something that looks like a dinosaur or may have been modeled on a dinosaur or named for a dinosaur tell us nothing about dinosaurs and nothing about the fiction from which these sightings of greater or lesser degrees of triviality are drawn. Oppose merging any of the material into any article about either dinosaurs in general or a specific species. Otto4711 16:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a comment to WikiProject Dinosaurs about this. Circeus 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 22:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod with reason: "Nonnotable bike race; no sources given." Google hits [31]. One source indicates that: "The Lake Tour Bike Trek has raised over 1.5 million dollars throughout its 22 year history with our organization," [32]. Listed here for wider debate. My listing is neutral. SilkTork 12:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Ok, I'm an idiot, found some sources. Tawker 04:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns w/ WP:RS and WP:V, I don't see how we are going to source this one with independent sources. Tawker 03:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no claim of notability. A brief websearch shows that it does not appear to meet criteria listed in WP:CORP. It has been speedily deleted before under criteria WP:CSD#A7. Deli nk 15:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 20:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Article recreated after speedy deletion, but there is an assertion of notability, so CSD A7 doesn't apply here. (If kept, the article would certainly require a rename.) Caknuck 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bio without notability Joedoedoe 15:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first AfD for this article resulted in a "no consensus" closure. DRV overturned, citing a failure to address the issue of lack of sources and verifiability in the original debate. Delete, per WP:V concerns. Xoloz 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as failing WP:N (specifically WP:BIO). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was incorrectly listed at WP:MfD. Original reason: local government councillor does not qualify as person of note on wikipedia Eraserman22 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC) -- kenb215 talk 15:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 19:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. Appears to have about 845 Google hits, but no source meets WP:V. Jauerback 15:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Closing-per WP:DPR#NAC Q T C 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing this AfD Q T C 16:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deletion. This was weird. Joke-ish articles and vandalism sprees are no good people. If the subject merits an article, let a good one be written with no ulterior motivation. If I could roll my eyes in wikiscript... — Scientizzle 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel bad about this; this is mostly my fault (I encouraged creation of the article as a bit of a joke.) In any case the article subject does not meet notability requirements (qua author, e.g., he has had no book from a major publisher; qua "public figure" just a few interviews here and there.) The article subject himself is very opposed to this page [35], and I think we should also take that into account. Let me suggest to the closing admin that this discussion be courtesy blanked to respect Jim's wishes. Sdedeo (tips) 14:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC) OK, the page has been deleted on its own it seems; move to close. Hopefully this will be the end of the drama. If anyone wants to recreate the page, please contact me first. Sdedeo (tips) 18:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry Jim, but your anti-careerist careerism has caught up with you. It's high time you had a Wikipedia page, and isn't vandalism more interesting than deletion? Of course, it would be nice if they spelled your name right, but that in itself is kinda funny. Poetry cellar 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as violating WP:PLOT and WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to being plot summaries in violation of WP:PLOT, this article is about two missions that were formerly part of a game whose article was deleted in this AFD. It seems odd to have an article about missions deleted from the game when there's no article on the game itself. And of course there are no reliable sources establishing the notability of the deleted games. Otto4711 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into StarCraft: It would be a suitable subsection to the Storyline or Development sections - probably best fitting in Storyline. Sidatio 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a couple of articles were missed when the other SC storyline articles were deleted. A simple sentence or two mentioning them should be put into the StarCraft article, but otherwise delete - these are only notable as a footnote. Besides, nothing links here and it's a basic copy-and-paste from StarCraft Wiki. -- Sabre 09:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE (news, unsourced) - Nabla 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is likely a hoax, but I would not say a blatant hoax that can be CSD'd. I think that such dubious claims should require sourcing or should not be on Wikipedia. Until(1 == 2) 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional character in an online game. Looks to likely be a player-character, but it's a bit hard to tell for certain. The article for the game itself makes no mention of the "Truth Saga" that is used to link to the game. No real assertion of notability, let alone verification of such. TexasAndroid 14:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article talks about a disease, but repeatedly reports that it is "not confirmed".
The only reference it gives points to the landing page of a College, but does not link to any information about the disease. I think even if this is to be an article one day, this is not a good start. I suggest deletion without prejudice against proper recreation. This was originally marked as a speedy deletion, but I could not fit it into the criteria. Until(1 == 2) 14:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ╦ 12:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another directory of loosely associated topics. Seeks to capture every reference to the film or a character or a line or something that may or may in the opinion of whoever spotted it resemble something related to the film. Tells us nothing about the film or the fiction from which the references are drawn. Otto4711 14:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep by means of consensus. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG by all information that was available to me. The very extensive article cites only one source (which I don't have access to unfortunately), and it is not clear whether this one is independent. The most detailed account I found on the Web is this, which is not quite enough for an encyclopedia article. (It's more or less a summary of their catalogue.) Expert review request to WikiProject Caribbean turned up nothing. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The article is pretty useless, even as a disambig. Also see previous discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Redirect_Archives/June_2006#12:00_.E2.86.92_hour and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12:00 (disambiguation). Sr13 is almost Singularity 20:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This particular time of day isn't notable (per ((PROD)), not mine, removed by principle author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 20:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Article was Speeedy Deleted - non admin closure of debate. Pedro | Chat 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to page author this person is notable, yet receives only 19 hits in Google, and in all of the references cites, the name Robonad is not found in any of the Indexes. Q T C 13:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, discussion irrelevant now that game has been announced. Thue | talk 20:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete Speculation, not a single reference Q T C 13:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE (POV[?] fork of an existing article) - I'll keep a copy of it at Talk:Tyne-Wear derby/History of the Tyne-Wear Derby for a week or so, so that merging anything usefull is possible. - Nabla 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To start with, there's no article called "Tyne-Wear Derby", nor does the article define what this might be (it appears to mean the football rivalry between Newcastle United F.C. and Sunderland A.F.C.). The sources quoted mention a generic rivalry between the cities in passing, and from this weak basis a "derby" between the two neighbouring cities is hypothesized. It thus violates WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Note that I have also proposed the deletion of the similar Tyne-Wear rivalry. ProhibitOnions (T) 13:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 03:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft, Wikipedia is not a collection of.... -- Jelly Soup 12:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#Online_leaks_and_early_delivery Already adequately covered there. May be notable in future, if offender is tracked down. ELIMINATORJR 23:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pottercruft - even the first line shoots itself in the foot. Will (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —Kurykh 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete Acalamari 17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable club. Tagged for speedy deletion but creator keeps deleting the speedy tag. So I'm taking it here instead TexMurphy 11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable pseudoscientific theory. The article attempts to prop up with questionable sources unscientific and blatantly anti-Ukrainian theory. Most of the sources used to support this invention are either from known Russian nationalists with anti-Ukrainian tendencies, like Nikolay Ulyanov or from fringe Ukrainian writers, who have never been taken seriously. This theory is actively used by Russian nationalists in an attempt to negate the very existence of Ukrainians as a separate people and has never been used by any serious scholars. This rabidly anti-Ukrainian and xenophobic article should not be in Wikipedia. --Hillock65 11:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as nasty pseudoscience. On second thought, I'll withdraw this comment. It's true that one hears this stuff from some strange quarters, but it might be possible to write about this phenomenon within the article, and the phenomenon itself might be notable, if not exactly scientifically rigorous. ProhibitOnions (T) 13:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Протоукры переводят интернет на протоукрский. Есть такой искусственный язык, украинский. В википедийной статье много написано, а по простому он - искусственного происхождения (холопы были вынуждены говорить с панами, вот и общались на причудливой смеси польского и русского, т.е. это - язык рабов), и никто толком (кроме какой-нибудь Леси Украинки и Тараса Шевченко) на нем ничего не писал. К счастью, это язык потихоньку исчезал после освобождения от пользского владычества, но со времени возникновения СССР, и особенно после его, СССР, гибели, вновь поднял свою голову.
--Alex Kov 14:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ╦ 12:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and POV fork. Consists of a collection of analogies used by some global warming skeptics. This material was taken [48] from Global warming controversy, where it was recently shortened [49] to a single sentence due to non-notability, as discussed on that article's talk (see discussion near bottom of this section). Nethgirb 10:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be new non-notable website that doesn't quite meet CSD criteria but none the less doesn't meet the criteria of a wikipedia article either. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as WP:CSD G11 obvious advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be nothing more than an advertisment. It seems to be copied from some sort of official website of the company in question and even at the end of the page it provides contact info. Not salvagable as an article. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be a made up term, combination of two prefixes to make some sort of neologism, possibily not even notable enough to be a neologism, poosibly a made up term. Google turns up little-nothing. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WTF. I do not have issues with this site. People don't comment on my blog! WTF. I don't get it? I'm not in control! WTF. How do you expect me to be in control of replies? People for some reason (perhaps beyond my comprehension) will not reply to me on forums or my blog. And it's really hard to find people who'll give a shit about my opinion in the gaming industry! Maybe a better catagory would be unpopular hardcore gamer. Renegadevikings
Comment: All right, renegadeviking - settle down. You're taking this FAR too personally. Wikipedia has guidelines in regards to its articles, and this one simply doesn't add up. Is Wikipedia the most factual reference in all of existence? Of course not. Is it of "so low quality" that "no American institution will use Wikipedia as a source"? Ask the Daily Illini. Just because one of your articles fails to measure up to standards doesn't mean you should go on a rant against the joint. It certainly doesn't help you here!
Read the five pillars, check out the guidelines, and silence your critics by creating great articles. It's the best possible advice I can give to you. Best of luck! Sidatio 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rasmussen College of Lake Elmo, MN will not use it as a source and neither would Renessiance Academy of River Falls, Wisconsin so I guess "American Institution" means "Instution of Learning" which is what a encyclopedia is used for these days Renegadeviking.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 21:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for speedy. Whilst the appearance on Tonight Show with Jay Leno is possibly trivial, the claim that the subject played for "England Cricket National team" is some kind of assertion of importance. Reading the paragraph, it is possibly only in the context of some kind of internet game. However, these statements on his sporting career are unreferenced. Marasmusine 09:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is in bad shape. Seems to be hodgepodge of various info without much of a context. No sources, no references... Wikidudeman (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted as unencylopedic and soapbox material ~ Riana ⁂ 09:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be some sort of essay. Impossible to turn into any article. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neologism. The article traces a few uses but there are few Ghits and no secondary sources which would justify an inclusion per Articles on neologisms. Tikiwont 08:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is mainly a syllabus of a project that is currently non-notable. Majority of article's content should be incorporated into grid computing and computer cluster. --Uthbrian (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 14:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, this article is a hoax - aside from the poor spelling in the title, I can find no reference to this television programme elsewhere on the internet. User who created article is known to have faked content in the past. TheIslander 08:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 21:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Place does not appear to be notable and is unreferenced. --Uthbrian (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a living person from Pakistan; violates WP:BLP and fails WP:BIO. Expert review request to WikiProject Pakistan did not yield any results. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. "they are going to be a large band very soon"? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Kurykh 00:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability; would appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (music). Oli Filth 08:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be deleted at all. they are going to be a large band very soon. just you wait.
Also another reason for not deleting this; They have succsesfully got number one positions in unsigned myspace english music charts for the genre Latin, Glam and Thrash. thats right. they are number one three times. they do have a fanbase. this should not be deleted.
The result was Paradigmatically delete. NawlinWiki 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to contain all Original Research, and the article goes off topic and does not explain what a marketing paradigm except for the definition at the very beginning of the article Gorkymalorki 07:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Starting in the 1980s, there was a group of theorists that felt this gradual evolution was unsatisfactory. They saw marketing, not as a continuously evolving discipline, but as an established discipline ripe for a paradigm shift. They felt that a radical new perspective was required. These theorists are typically associated with either relationship marketing, customer experience management, or network marketing.
Wow! A paradigm shift! And let me guess, these theorists all have consultancies or management fad books to sell? - Smerdis of Tlön 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as failing WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable; 862 google hits, no references. -Icewedge 07:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This entry was part of a project by students from the school. I'll refer them to the NPOV policy, but in the meantime, school management have requested our entry be deleted.
The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Failed notability guideline. I have prod'ed the article, but the author removed the tag and no improvement made since then. Searching on google did not get independent and non-trivial reliable sources. — Indon (reply) — 07:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor league player, per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 06:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this, for instance ... Ravenswing 14:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 18:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be notable enough for an article, or encyclopediac. Not enough sources from Google searching for him or on Google news. Freedomeagle 06:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced non-notable minor league player per WP:BASEBALL. (Unsourced army history is also non-notable. Unfortunately, many US soldiers give up their life for the USA). Truest blue 06:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor league player per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 05:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was garbage. DS 15:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a phrase that supposedly is a common greeting in European languages. A Google search of the phrase (with no hits from anything that could be considered a reliable source) and the fact that the provided references make no mention (much less discussion) of such a phrase makes me doubt this claim. All in all, it just looks like complete bollocks. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 21:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college professor. Google brings us 536 hits, with the top results belonging to the university's domain name. Most of the links are simple bios or faculty pages. Nothing to see here. Consequentially 05:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable campus organization at University of Southern California. A Google test for '"Campus Cruiser" USC'" yields 1,100 results, most of which come from USC domains or other trivial/not-reliable sources. Noble-hearted organization, but not notable. Consequentially 05:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect. As Goal line is now a dab page with a link to Football pitch, I edited the dab page to include a reference to byline, and inserted a paragraph into Football pitch to explain the term. Hopefully this is a good solution. ELIMINATORJR 23:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Especially not a dictionary of lesser-known sports terms. Consequentially 05:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was transwiki, then delete (as per normal transwiki procedure). This result is made by reading the comments, not just the bolded term (in case it confuses people). —Kurykh 00:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Wikipedia is not a dictionary', virtually orphaned article, unnecessary Anarchia 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A serious notability issue. A Google test for "A Polsky Co" yields four results, a similar test for "Polsky Company" yields 19 results, most of which are trivial mentions in the biographies of other people. The article mentions that the company was of local note only. It's connection to the university is insufficient for notability, as well. Consequentially 04:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge with sword making. I have redirected it there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article survived deletion once before under the circumstances that it would be fixed up. That was in 2004. This article is really the same thing as the sharpening article, except that this is completely unsourced and appears to be OR, as well as containing information not pertaining to the actual subject DurinsBane87 04:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet burdens established by WP:FICTION by a mile. What information is relevant to the plot of FernGully: The Last Rainforest is already included there, so a merge is unnecessary. Consequentially 04:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Please take any discussions of problems with the format or content of the article to Talk:Wedding of the Weddings. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very few hits on Google for "Wedding of the Weddings", seems to be a non-notable event. Brianga 04:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable social group. Article does not provide any references. --Uthbrian (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Copied from talk page
This article is written from an Assyrianist point-of-view. Based on a few sources, it states that all Syriacs are Assyrians, while labelling those Syriacs who consider themselves Aramaeans as being ignorant of their own heritage. It should therefore, in my opinion, be deleted. Information can be merged with either the Syriacs page or the Assyrian people page. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No stance - repairing malformed nomination -- saberwyn 07:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. —Kurykh 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Film with no evidence of notability. The award cannot be sourced and there are no references to the film from WP:RS. I have also nominated the article on the personnel associated with the movie, as they seem to lack the WP:RS to meet WP:BIO, have no evidence of notability outside of this unsourceable film project, and ultimately are only propping up the film article in question. Delete all as indicated. --Kinu t/c 03:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball delete. Acalamari 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary Captain panda 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In today's time, it is all about bringing the inside out, from living rooms to complete outdoor kitchens.
But I do need to pick up some tiki lights, thanks for the reminder. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as WP:CSD#A7 by Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab 03:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. Little context given. Sounds slightly like advertising. Captain panda 03:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per CSD G12 (copyright infringement) and CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). — TKD::Talk 08:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability for Non-commercial organizations; "background" section is lifted from org's mission statement [54], as is the "mission statement" section; no notable accomplishments listed; Yahoo! search returns their website and the Wikipedia page; appears to be a non-notable organization. --Old Hoss 03:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Captain panda 03:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as WP:CSD#G1 by Eyrian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic. Not NPOV. Captain panda 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator due to overwhelming keep votes. Non-admin closure --Longing.... 23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Colbert (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The page has made little improvement in quality since its original nomination, and after a month of tagging it, no one has made an attempt to improve it. Any significant aspects of the character are already noted on the Stephen Colbert and The Colbert Report pages. The article reads like a list of gags and off-hand remarks about Colbert's supposed past on the show with little in the way of actual sources or organization. The article could be re-written to be an actual biography, but it would not be notable due to the fact that most of the info Colbert has reveal about the character is just made for a joke, ie, the backpacking around Europe, etc.
Before giving your support, please read this policy. Keep in mind that little improvements have been made since the original nomination and I don't see anyone making an effort to clean-up the article. Also observe that the two above articles already discuss the important aspects of the character. Unless someone is willing to do a total re-write of the article, due to the fact that it is a fictional character, I don't see any reason to keep it.
Also, I apologize if I used the improper protocol for a page's 2nd nomination, but this is the first time I've done it and I had difficulty understanding the policy page's advice for such. The Clawed One 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable roller coaster. Article fails to mention its notability. Article appears identical to other articles about roller coasters at Mt. Olympus Water & Theme Park. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are from the same theme park, also fail to assert notability, and are written in the same form as Pegasus:
--TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by User:Mets501 just as AfD was opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an unreleased album (see CRYSTAL). No references cited to indicate significant discussion interest, or notability prior to release -- indeed no independent references or links cited at all. Articles about future albums by this artist have been deleted before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Carter (AKA War Wounds). While this article is not identical or substantially similar to the one deleted (and thus is should not be speedy deleted as a repost of deleted content, many of the arguments at that afd seem to apply here. DES (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 04:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like many "...in popular culture" entries, this articles fails to meet both Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria. Should some of the popular culture references be notable enough, they should be included in the main article. Tomj 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect. It seems like there's nothing useful to merge, that no one particularly wants the history of problematic edits, and (from what I can tell by inspecting the history) that there was never a direct merge from this article in the past (which would pose GFDL edit history issues). Still, leaving a redirect behind is a good idea to discourage article re-creation. — TKD::Talk 03:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article presents a two-fold problem. First, goes head-long against the guidelines expressed in WP:FICTION, covering in great-detail a fictional topic without reference to its real-world value. It doesn't even pay lip service to the notion of real-world perspective, mentioning only that "it's an instanced dungeon in WoW" before taking off into fictional detail. Second, it trips over WP:NOT#GUIDE. Half of the text is spent telling us what monsters live there, and how Horde and Alliance players can activate and access the instance. What information is actually encyclopedia-worthy is already covered in Locations in the Warcraft Universe, and the rest is covered in the existing WoW wiki. There's no reason for this. Consequentially 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 18:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many claims of association with notable people, but I don't see anything that establishes the notability of the subject itself. WP:BIO, WP:COI. Vanity page. Douglasmtaylor T/C 01:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Two totally nonnoteworthy movies, the kinship to Buffalo Bill (though probably a good story at parties ;-) ) is quite remote. jddphd (talk · contribs) 01:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NawlinWiki 18:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. This debate has raised some very interesting points, all of which are valid. Essentially, it comes down to whether or not this article constitutes original research and a particular point of view, both of which are policies which we hold in the highest regard, and that we always fall back to, when dealing with articles that may or may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Reading this discussion has lead me to believe consensus agrees that the article in and of itself is not neutral and thus should be removed from Wikipedia. However, there has been mention that this article contains valuable information that could be used elsewhere (primarily, Hukou). Thus, I am closing this debate as delete, but I will restore to user space on request, so relevant information can be merged if need be. ^demon[omg plz] 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I realize that this is one of those AfDs that will undoubtedly be sent to DRV within the hour, no matter which way it is closed. Furthermore, despite the incivil tone by both sides throughout this discussion, there have been a number of good points brought up by the two sides.
I would like to address comments related to specific editors first. The accusation has been brought forth by multiple editors of a POV on behalf of contributors from WikiProject Israel, stating that their creation of this article is an WP:POINT disruption. This is not relevant. This is a debate about the article, not the editors. Furthermore, as Jayjg has stated, WP:POINT is not a basis for deletion, as it relates to user behavior. As such, if you wish to take action against said editors, an RfC is a more appropriate outlet, since AfD can't block, reprimand or ban.
Now, the actual article. It is true, as many editors have pointed out, that it is well-sourced and well-written. However, this does not automatically excuse an article; WP:SYNTH's existence logically infers that even the best of articles can advance a viewpoint. The NPOV/POV of this article is what is at the heart of the matter, but even so, few arguments have been made that can effectively dispute the synthesis. This leads me to the technical aspects. Sure, as I've said, it's well-sourced and well-written, but this article is not well planned. There is little to no cohesion between the subjects discussed in the article. There is no flow between the sections. In other words, there's a lack of the big picture. As such, the concerns about WP:SYNTH are vaild.
But is this even the best way to present this information? With the synthesis established, it would make more sense to merge the information to the relevant articles. Lothair of the Hill People's assessment of where to merge the material is accurate; the main article for hukou is a far better place for that heading's information. The other appropriate information should be merged to Human rights in China, Allegations of apartheid and Tibet Autonomous Region.
Therefore, Merge and delete. (Note: ^demon beat me in an edit conflict, hence my endorsement) Hemlock Martinis 19:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This issue has been brought before ArbCom. --Ideogram 04:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid for a discussion on how to deal with this and other similar articles. <<-armon->> 01:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions, remembering to assume good faith on the part of others. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional])) |
Perhaps the worst of a now-infamous and metastasizing series of original-research WP:POINT essays. It slaloms around clumsily between five unrelated issues – migrant workers, the Tibetan occupation, African and Taiwanese populations within China, religious minorities within China, and civil liberties more generally among the Chinese. Why this particular grab-bag of disparate topics? Because, using the latest in data-mining technology, a Wikipedian discovered that a certain class of verbal act – an “allegation of apartheid,” if you will, meaning a sentence with the word “apartheid” in it – could be find in one, two, sometimes three (and in one case six!) primary-source documents within each of the five topics above. There are no secondary sources at all; no one discussing these primary-source “allegations”; no sources even calling them “allegations,” in fact, since this particular species of verbal act was discovered, described, and classified by Wikipedians; no sources linking these diverse topics in this or any other way. Different writers writing about different things, with no thought to one another or to the hobby-horses of future Wikipedians, used the word “apartheid”; that is all.
Remember the old Far Side cartoon [“What We Say to Dogs”/”What They Hear”]? That's what we're dealing with. “What Various Sources Say about Various Unrelated Issues in China”/”What Users X and Y Hear.”
blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah APARTHEID blah blah blah...
Each block quote houses one iteration of the word “apartheid.” The blah-blah-blah portions between the block quotes consist of pure original research:
The article ends on a wonderfully ludicrous note. We are told that our own Jimbo Wales "compared China's restrictions on internet usage and free speech to South African apartheid." But here we are offered no block quote to go with our blah-blah, nor even given the rhetorical details of the comparison. Why? Because the AP reporter we've relied on for this gem didn't find it notable enough to report. So in the absence of our master's voice saying "apartheid, apartheid," we console ourselves with what appears to be his driver's-licence photo.
Delete this dreck.
WP:N and WP:NOR require secondary sources for a reason – to prevent hobby-horse essay-articles about issues not recognized as issues anywhere in the actual world. G-Dett 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) We have already provided a systematic solution to the question you raise. That is that there is a difference between sources making an allegation and sources discussing an allegation. The sources G-Dett gave discuss the allegations. The sources in all the other articles in the series make the allegations. You refuse to accept this systematic solution because it results in the Israeli article being kept and the rest deleted. In fact you will not accept any solution that has this result; you will say or do or think anything you can to avoid that result. --Ideogram 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) This is not the place to make new policy. You cannot produce a source discussing allegations of Chinese apartheid, so you cannot answer my objection. Everything else you say is irrelevant. --Ideogram 04:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) This is a perfect example of the depths to which this pro-Israeli clique will sink to get their way. We have explained to you in simple language, multiple times, what the systemic solution is and you have made no reply. You yourself admit the sources G-Dett found above all argued against the allegation, yet here you are trying to insinuate that G-Dett believes Israel practices apartheid. --Ideogram 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'* Delete as WP:POV. Any useful information better placed elsewhere. I'm reminded of the old political tactic Let's make the bastard deny it. (Johnson, I think). The heading is phrased to give an appearance of neutral examination of "allegations", but serves as WP:POV advocacy for themm in my humble opinion. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the middle age, when the pest came, there were allogations of jewish poisoning of wells. Nobody had any proof or even seen a Jew poisoning a well, but everyowne had heard someone say it. Nobody could have o proof, because, as we know now, the pest was not the result of poison but of dirt and garbidge. The allogations in these articles have the same quality. We can only be thankfull that wikipedia is to unimportant to cause the death of thousands of innocent people as these historical allogations did. --Thw1309 11:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys asking for consistency just don't get it. When I was struggling to establish consistent usage of "Taiwan" versus "Republic of China" in article titles, where the hell were you? Oh, I see, you want consistent treatment of "Allegations of apartheid" but when it comes to consistency elsewhere, you don't care.
Anyone with any breadth of experience on Wikipedia knows there is no consistency here. Every editor has his own idea of "the right way to do it" and fights break out when editors with different ideas try to establish their own rules as "standard". Sane people avoid these fights and let editors reach agreement on individual articles, not Wikipedia standards. It is not my problem that you can't get the Israeli article deleted, just as the Taiwan/ROC naming issue was not your problem. Your attempt to make it my problem is pissing me off. --Ideogram 11:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and AFD is not a vote. If you don't address the issues raised, don't waste your time. --Ideogram 12:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(BTW I ran into a number of edit conflicts during this edit, so if I mangled something you posted, I apologize in advance. --Ideogram 14:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
A number of authors have leveled allegations of Chinese apartheid drawing analogies between some practices of the People's Republic of China and apartheid-era South Africa.
Note for the closing admin. I'm not an admin but perhaps my review of the votes would be helpful, if you don't mind. A number of voters question the Article Name (Title) on POV grounds, several concluding that the Name/Title violates WP:NPOV. So far, it appears that no Users have defended the neutrality of the wording of the Article Name. (Some mention the consistency with other Article Names, but not neutrality per se.) See the review here. Under current policy, if there is an implicit consensus that Article Name does not satisfy NPOV, is that a necessary and sufficient condition to Delete or at least Move the article? ............. If so, then this may not require a judgment call on disputed sources and WP:N. Likewise, while there may be a violation of WP:OR due to WP:SYNTH, such a judgment of article Content seems to be disputed. Thanks very much! HG | Talk 22:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia collection (unacceptable per WP:FIVE), or, if you prefer, a loosely associated group of topics (unacceptable per WP:NOT#DIR. Skirts entirely around actual perception of Hitler into random video game and book references. All with nary a citation to offend the eye. Eyrian 01:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
by Lutz P Koepnick, Faschismus in der populären Kultur by Georg Seesslen from OCLC in a 30 second search--added to the article &I'll do a few more. More sources can be added, but not to all of these dozens of articles in 5 days total. Possibly at the rate of one article a week, if the individual items are to be sourced properly as well. They should all be kept, and some agreement reached on which ones to work on first. There's a three way choice here for articles on this or any other subject: good articles, low quality articles, no articles. Only the first of them benefits the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable gathering place for college kids in Colorado; orphaned page; creator only edited this one page; has been tagged for cleanup since March to no avail. --Old Hoss 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. No consensus to delete. Sancho 07:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
wp:nota guide, this seems to be the 2nd copy of the same thing as well. Pharmboy 01:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. No consensus to delete. Sancho 07:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a guide, above article is a clone up for delete as well. Pharmboy 01:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by Mysid Deli nk 17:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement, taken directly from their website [62]; orphaned page; creator is virtually only editor and virtually only edited this page. --Old Hoss 01:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Cool Hand Luke 07:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is tough one. Despite being a national ad campaign, I'm not convinced that this meets notability guidelines. Specifically, our guidelines instruct us to look for things that bring significant third-party coverage, and caution us that a topic should have long-term notability as opposed to a short flurry of activity. In these respects, I believe this advertisement fails. A Google test for '"Pizza Head Show" -wikipedia'" yields 471 results. I understand that the Google test isn't perfect, especially considering the ad campaign ran nearly fifteen years ago, but I compare those results to similar tests for Scrubbing Bubbles (62,000 hits), Frito Bandito (17,700 hits), or Buddy Lee (23,400 hits). These are campaigns similar in length and penetration to the Pizza Head commercials, and even they pale in comparison to advertising titans like McGruff the Crime Dog (90,000+ hits) or the Energizer Bunny (347,000 hits). Consequentially 00:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Tall Man. Sancho 07:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Written in-universe, notability isn't proven, no sources, appears to be primarily Original Research, and from what I gather isn't even an official name for the object in question DurinsBane87 00:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable club; has never played above Step 7 and has now left the Middlesex County Football League so seemingly no longer in the pyramid. Number 57 10:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per verifiability, notability, and original research concerns; those leaning toward "weak keep" agreed that the article needs a rewrite, and discussion cast unresolved doubt on whether serious reliable sources could be found. — TKD::Talk 07:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is all over the place, trying to define a reputed "rivalry" that may not exist in any meaningful sense beyond the football pitch (which would be better dealt with in the articles for the respective football teams). It consists entirely of unsourced original research. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Tyne-Wear Derby. ProhibitOnions (T) 13:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A (reader) review of this book on Amazon called Alice in Sunderland says "Hinting at the traditional Sunderland-Newcastle rivalry, a theme discussed in the book, the credits reveal that the Newcastle-based Arts Council England (North East) refused a grant for the Sunderland based work."
Similar claims aren't just made but referenced on the History of the Tyne-Wear Derby, an article which is linked to this one via a merge template. There's no reason that someone with an interest in NE England's history couldn't make something decent from this. QuagmireDog 09:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a freestyle/battle rapper who appears to be almost entirely non-notable. Aside from the utter trivia in the article, I see that he "is still looking for his record deal". Allmusic lists him with one entry for a track on one album (apparently a compilation). He is featured on a track of "Talib Kweli's critically acclaimed mixtape Confidential Mixtape" which may well be notable but for which we don't have an article. It is not clear to me that battle rappers should be held precisely to WP:MUSIC standard; for example, Serius Jones, who appears to be a small notch up in notability, took part in MTV2's Fight Klub, which is at least a claim to something. I'm not sure where the line is drawn for notability, so I am floating this AfD as a trial balloon. As for references, of course, I don't see any reliable ones, thought he has a fair number of google hits (e.g., youtube videos of battles). Comments? Nominator votes delete, but willing to be convinced otherwise. bikeable (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song by a fairly notable singer. Single has never charted on any of the national music charts. I've proposed a merger to the singer's article, but in reality there's not a lot of mergeable content here. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an article on an individual chapter of a book? No. Just, no. WP:N or whatever but, come on, an article about a chapter? No. Otto4711 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 22:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable church. Speedy delete was declined with the reason, "In the U.S., any church that is 150 years old is arguably notable." I disagree: the old Northwest Territory (which included Indiana) was settled in the first half of the nineteenth century. This church was established in 1861, around the same time as most of the other churches now in its diocese (the major exception being those parishes started after World War II) and decades after some of them. The oldest still-operational church in the diocese was established in 1732. Most importantly, this church does not appear to be covered by independent, reliable sources that would allow us to expand the article beyond its current stub status. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 22:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be original research and a neologism. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss it. Heck a google search estimates about 74 pages with the term, the vast majority of which seem to be false positive. See [65] JoshuaZ 03:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus (keep)—although the article shows little notability as it stands, users have shown that notability does exist (and a quick findarticles.com search shows that there are sources out there that discuss him at least in part). Please source the article correctly. — Deckiller 14:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to cite sources. It also fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE - Most keeps are based on possible future notability. We don't keep until it becomes notable, we create after it becomes notable. And this is (thus far?) a short lived, small sized, no major achievements organization. - Nabla 13:00, 9 August 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)) . |
The article reads like an advertisement, and fails WP:ORG. They're not even registered. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Delete GreenJoe 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by User:Eyrian, non-admin closure. Hut 8.5 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No verifiable claims of notability whatsoever. cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete — TKD::Talk 10:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn local restaurant; can't find any references other than articles locked behind registration-only pages. All of the registration-only pages are local mentions in one or two local newspapers, and an anon removed the prod. Delete. fethers 17:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nominating these apartheid articles individually is becoming disruptive and an energy drain on the community. Please try to sort out outstanding issues at the centralized discussion venue first. El_C 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Saudi Arabian apartheid" is not in common usage and only produces 296 hits on google[67]This article is made up almost entirely of quotes and artificially blends two different concepts, treatment of religious minorities and sexual discrimination. Any useful information should be moved to Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia and Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. The article as it stands is a POV fork of those two articles. Lothar of the Hill People 19:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first two give hundreds of results, the third gives almost 5,000. also, consider that most articles dealing with saudi arabia's apartheid wont necessarily use the phrase in quotes. If a merge is being proposed, the appropriate place would be the article, not an AFD. --Urthogie 21:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that that I had only one basis for this deletion request, it's that you've only addressed one of the points I've raised and ignored the rest. Neat trick.
In any case, your google point falls apart when you actually look closely. Your first two google examples barely returned 500 hits between them. The results of the third"apartheid in saudi arabia" is not what you say it is. Look at the hits and you'll see what's actually being returned are referneces to "gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia", "sexual apartheid in Saudi Arabia" or "religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia". As a stand-alone phrase "apartheid in Saudi Arabia" almost never comes up and that's because as a single concept it doesn't exist. Of these 5,000 hits I only found a few dozen if that that were for "Apartheid in Saudi Arabia" as a stand-alone phrase.
What you've done is taken two different ideas "gender apartheid" and "religous apartheid" and mashed them up so you could have "Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid". That's a completely unprofessional way to write an article. Lothar of the Hill People 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, but rename. The factual accuracy was essentially not under fire in this afd. However the neutrality appears to leave a lot to be desired in the minds of the deletion !voters, and that neutrality is not really addressed by the keep suggestions. While this is a documented phenomenon - to the point where it is pointed out that Britanica even mentions it, they only use the word apartheid in passing. Therefore, one condition of this article being kept is that a more neutral title is rapidly agreed upon, and the article moved per the suggestions of several of the people participating in this discussion. ViridaeTalk 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV/Content fork of Tourism in Cuba. Merge other material to less POV-titled "Tourist segregation". Lothar of the Hill People 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was nominated for deletion on 31/7/2006. The result of the discussion was keep
No sources apart from the Church itself. Will (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per CSD G12. Could've been tagged as such. — TKD::Talk 08:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Badly written article, notability not asserted. Some of the text was lifted straight from http://www.emmure.com/main.php?pageID=bio -Nard 23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]