The result was Delete Alex Bakharev 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 23:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]
Article in question: Yellow Second. The band could possibly stay, but I don't think it satisfies the WP:BAND notability guidelines. The band broke up in October, so they aren't going to have any more hits. I think this could merit a section in the Five Iron Frenzy page, or if Kerr had his own article, then a section there. --Hojimachongtalkcon 00:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete because the keep arguments are not giving enough reasons for a valid inclusion of this article. The article is clearly lacking reliable sources and hence does not conform with WP:V. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find this film on IMDB. Google produces many Wikipedia mirrors and gay film sites acknowledging its existence but with little else to say. I suspect it therefore fails WP:NOTABLE. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, the keep arguments do not indicate how this article seems to meet WP:MUSIC. It is clear that this article does not meet the primary It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable criterion for inclusion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable band; no indication of meeting the criteria at WP:MUSIC. —Angr 13:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, no concensus to redirect. If you wish to pursue an editorial-concensus-based redirect proposal, feel free to use the talk page (not AfD II). - Daniel.Bryant 08:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability
I propose the deletion of this article. The main reason is the lack of notability. This person has been the chairman of a non-notable and no longer existing Belgian party, which is largely unknown and has never played a significant role in Belgian politics. This is also proven by the fact that this article didn't get more than one sentence, while this article already exists since 2004. Sijo Ripa 13:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable Nick Catalano contrib talk 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, after weighing both the keep and delete arguments. I do agree that the article needs to be re-written, but that is not a reason enough to delete it outright. The NPOV issue can be dealt with by rephrasing the words and quoting the magazine which calls this enterprise "the fastest-growing video game retailer in the United States". This is a borderline close and the nominator or any other interested party can re-nom this article for deletion after a reasonable period of time, if no more independent sources are available. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it is below the radar on notability Alex Bakharev 00:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, although I would agree with the delete arguments that this article inherently fails WP:BIO. However, as an academic it is possible that he would not be the main subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. But his work and research has been mentioned in multiple sources as illustrated by the article. There is a proposed guideline which has not achieved consensus as yet, but sums up good reasons why professors and other academicians should be included into the Encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is only an assistant professor and does not have many publications. The publications he has are not well cited and not influential. Not notable per WP:BIO. Mnemopis 03:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was The result was no consensus. This is a borderline case for notability when you refer to WP:BIO. The subject of the article might not have multiple, non-trivial independent sources to justify it's inclusion; a lot of his published work is available over Google Scholar search; and the article needs expansion and not deletion. There is a proposed guideline on the subject of academicians which sums up good reasons why academicians should be included as subjects in the encyclopedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I pull up 7 hits when I Pubmed search this guy. Does not seem very notable and does not meet WP:BIO. Mnemopis 03:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ok, I've changed my mind. This guy's article should be kept, but the article should include some of his publications and significant findings. Mnemopis 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nelogoism that isn't verified by anything reliable. Links down at the bottom are all fan-created info (such as user-submitted terms to UrbanDictionary, or guides to that BBC link). I did a quick Google search: out of 4,000 hits, all of them link to fanfiction sites or user-created info, none of which can be used under WP:RS. Hbdragon88 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 05:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears from the text to be a non-notable person SilkTork 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - brenneman 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable browser game per WP:WEB/WP:SOFTWARE, text reads like a game guide. There is an older version that doesn't, but it's old, with hardly any info. But in any case, I don't think there are any reliable sources out there on this topic: I found a whole buttload of ghits, mostly forums. Alexa rank is around 155K, which is low for something like this (wouldn't the constant connection generate an artificially high rank?) Mangojuicetalk 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm starting to get a bit dispirited at alot of these deletion proposals... this is game is certainly notable, just becuase its not physically 'there' like some of the trash which is included, doesn't mean it shouldnt have an entry. Even more frustrating, is theres no way to know when these rather random deletion proposals are are even made without spending hours on WP daily... Bjrobinson 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.gameforge.de/space4k/24,0,0,0,2.html This is a purely online game, there is no printed material for it. There are websites devoted to tips, strategies, and offering tools to aid in the playing of this game. It is played world-wide by tens of thousands of people. http://www.space4k.info/ Runescape, Ogame, etc are all online games with no more "notability" then Space4k. Typhonous 05:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE I'm happy to userfy the content if anyone wants them in order to populate a category -Docg 20:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
an indiscriminate and unreferenced list of companies in Vietnam; Wikipedia is not a directory. An injunction at the top to add only corporations with articles has been universally ignored, and probably always will be. Brianyoumans 11:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete A7. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable online game. 25 000 registered users is fairly negligible and there does not seem to be any sort of reliable third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The keep arguments do not make it clear as to the criteria for its inclusion. There is a lack of multiple non-trivial independent sources for this article. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fails on notability, has no corroboration and reads like advertising / vanity piece. Wastekiller 18:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy, should be an open-and-shut case. 17-year-old folksinger, no albums, no national tour, no other signifiers of notability per WP:MUSIC. "...not until early 2007 did he start to build up a small fan base." Indeed. Herostratus 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep since no good reason has been shown for deleting this list other than "Gosh! how MANY of them ARE there?" HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of these asteroids are notable and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information Nardman1 02:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected. Sandstein 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article Oyez.org written by me, which has the identical subject of this article, has more information and details, and is fully referenced, I suggest this one to be redirect to Oyez.org. Wooyi 02:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the article is unclear, it combines snippets of information that is given more appropriately elsewhere. The title isn't a commonly used term and has no clear definition besides the trivial fact that nomadic people happen to migrate in one form or another. Most of the article text talks about different subjects than the title. Latebird 02:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted. 〈REDVEЯS〉 11:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes outrageous claims, like a 7 year old being head of a gang and having a chauffer's license and being reincarnated. Obviously a hoax. No g-hits besides wiki-mirrors and blogs Nardman1 02:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to be in any way significant and also appears to be an autobiography by someone with a rather high opinion of himself. Necrothesp 02:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. Agathoclea
This article is a hoax. Every edit by the author is a hoax. No g-hits besides wiki-mirrors. Nardman1 03:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect and merge (if possible) with Ctrl+Alt+Del. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though Buckley has public exposure, this page really doesn't say anything that should not appear on Ctrl+Alt+Del. So delete based on notability. DaoKaioshin 03:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE without prejudice to a properly referenced, WP:BLP compliant article being written by a disinterested party. If any experienced wikipedian wants to take this article on, I'll be happy to undelete it, or give them access to the history. -Docg 20:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this article is about Scot Shields the baseball player, full of citiation tags. Tagged with a ((prod)) but removed by an anonymous user. Have your say. BuickCenturyDriver 03:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak keep I have stubbed this article to get of uncited defamatory material. The article is not about the baseball player; it is about a Sept 11 Ground Zero volunteer described here: http://www.bearsearchandrescue.org/. This person is unquestionably notable but the quality problems are so severe that I would not object to deleting it and starting over. Kla'quot 06:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Delete unless a person who isn't involved in the situation in real life, and who has experience in following Wikipedia content polcies, offers to rewrite this article exclusively from reliable sources. Many articles which get off to a bad start end up fine, but this article doesn't seem to be going in that direction. Please also consider protecting the article as a non-defamatory stub until contributors come to consensus on Talk about what the reliable sources are for this article. Kla'quot 07:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should stay. It is true and my article at http://landofpuregold.com/truthiness.htm supports it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landofpuregold (talk • contribs) — Landofpuregold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
**KEEP!!** Great editing out od defamatory stuff. Much better now. Highly notable on many blog sites and national print news media. A public figure with book authorship on WTC disaster ("Bear: Heart of a Hero"). Especially notable in search and rescue & first responder communities.Princetonpals 03:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea Buick. Makes more sense.Princetonpals 21:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — Princetonpals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment There seems to be several Wikipedia:Single purpose accounts voting and commenting on this article. Jeepday 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. -Docg 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but contested. No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. -Docg 20:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. Weakly. Very weakly. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written article, but is essentially just an obituary. None of his achievements seem very notable (started, or perhaps just ran for a while, a local newspaper, was chair of local branch of Democratic Party, and won some Rotarian award). No relevant Google hits. Elmer Clark 03:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{complete text of Alonzo Sebastian Blalock removed}
Billy Hathorn 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 18:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. All links that appear in blue end up going to articles of no relation. Based on this, assuming that the band is non-notable. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 18:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable webcomic publisher. Top magazine only sold 5,000 copies. No reliable sources; much of the article is simply listing parody comic titles. /Blaxthos 03:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and tag as unreferenced PeaceNT 14:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but notability is asserted. Not sure if it's credible. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per author's request, game creator's request, and general consensus in this nomination. -- nae'blis 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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)) . |
48 active players, no external sources, reads like it was written by the creators. Page has existed since May of last year. -- nae'blis 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP no compelling reason or consensus to delete - if it troubles you, merge it -Docg 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A college residence hall. I don't think is notable enough, but perhaps others can add their 2 cents. Jvhertum 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a building with a rich history, along with much of the rest of the Dalhousie campus. Howe Hall, another residence, has an article, and I know other halls from other campuses must have articles here on Wikipedia. Both articles are well written, and are quite informative for those looking for information on buildings in Halifax. I don't see why most other building articles in Halifax should be more notable (Bank of Montreal Building (Halifax), Loyola Residence Tower, Scotia Square, Alderney Landing) Lusankya 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manager of a non-notable social indoor football team Lankiveil 04:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. -Docg 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page, and all associated pages, are subpages of the article. Problem? Subpages do not exist in the article namespace, so the article in question is considered separate. The nomination also includes the linked "subpages". I don't know if the merging project is dead; I don't know if this is even encyclopædic, either. We could also move this to the talk namespace, if the project is even still alive. (Due to technical limitations, this is a subpage of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dictionary of chemical formulas. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed advertising speedy, article doesn't really assert meeting WP:N/WP:SOFTWARE. Consider me in favor of deletion unless sources are added. --W.marsh 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod expired, but to combat systemic bias I'm giving AFD a chance to salvage it. Prod rationale was "Not notable. Company has published translations of six kids' books. Possible WP:COI problem judging by all the personal info in the article." If the article is not significantly improved, it should be deleted. GRBerry 04:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album fails WP:N , WP:RS, WP:V and WP:MUSIC. It only gets about 1000 Google hits independent of Wikipedia.Inkpaduta 04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC -- Longhair\talk 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable single. Fails WP:N, WP:RS. WP:V, and WP:MUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkpaduta (talk • contribs) 04:46, 11 February 2007
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 08:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline on notability. If the consenseus is keep, the page should be moved to Moises Salinas. BuickCenturyDriver 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can find no evidence of notability for this band. It was tagged PROD, but was removed with the note "there is no reason to delete this page". I disagree. ♠PMC♠ 21:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 09:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor football team member. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Revolution FC. Original AfD was to delete a different Keith Murphy entirely. -- Longhair\talk 05:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yuser31415 07:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album fails WP:N, WPRS:, WP:V, and WP:MUSIC. Inkpaduta 05:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per article's improvement. PeaceNT 15:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted this under category a7, and another editor asked me to restore it based on a fairly large Ghit count. However, the article positively asserts the band's "lack of fame", and cites no reliable sources. I found a few independent sources on Google but I am not sure that any of them are reliable. NawlinWiki 05:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Psyopus has also toured the fully spectrum of the States with such other noteable acts as Cannibal Corpse, The Red Chord, Dying Fetus, Hank Williams the III, Job For a Cowboy, Cephalic Carnage, A Life Once Lost, and Heavy Heavy Low Low.
Also, their Metal Blade release was in late Feb 2007. This was after the initially proposed deletion in Jan 2007. Since then there are so many reviews for this band and so many interviews in any language imaginable, it would be an inaccurate descision to assume that this band is being missed by the radar. Just search them on the internet or check out their myspace page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.144.108 (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus PeaceNT 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable porn performer, does not satisfy WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V Inkpaduta 05:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A search fails to bring up any sources that would show this person is notable. The closest I could find are these two results. This and this. Neither of which give anymore than a one off trival passing mention to him. Also the article itself hardly gives him any claims to notability either. Mathmo Talk 05:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to meet notability guidelines in WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 05:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article about an apparently nonnotable vehicle manufacturer. Fabral santana -wikipedia only gets a couple of hundred Google hits, and many of these are unrelated to the vehicles. This is a Brazilian company, so maybe others can determine if there are sources to show notability and make this into a keepable article. Appears to fail WP:N WP:CORP and WP:RS Inkpaduta 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Additional sources go a long way to showing notability and verifiability. Eluchil404 08:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not contesting the fact that there are Koreans in the Philippines, most of the article as it stands is not verifiable. A great deal of the article is unreferenced, and might not even be possibly reference-able. The article scope seems confused, being a mix of unverified statistics, history, religion, sociology and a little blurb about the entertainment industry. Notability may also be suspect, as there is most likely a minority of X nationality in most, if not all countries. Most of those communities do not warrant articles on Wikipedia. Shrumster 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 13:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be more of a half-started work or a scrapbook. The name Methane reformer (car) is used without there being any article called Methane reformer. The article should be completed or deleted. Tunheim 11:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted. 〈REDVEЯS〉 11:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 05:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concept is a neologism from a book by a non-notable author. Search reveals no notable company on earth that has a person in this position. UnitedStatesian 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 23:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Weak keep for now - the above searches appear to indicate this content could be salvageable. Addhoc 23:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic definition of personal name which has already been transwikied to Wikt. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn, article has shown improvement with reference added since it was tagged for AfD PeaceNT 05:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Advert for commercial venture, with associates of the venture adding weight against critics of the venture. Gomez2002 11:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said right at the start of the discussion that it was spam. I tried to offset puff that was stuffed into it by EE associates, and then we saw a senior member of EE staff engaging in a campaign to purge anything that was critical.
The fact that it is filled with unverified facts both pro and con is enough reason to delete it. However, there is still the matter of the patent. That is verified. The patent does exist. That can still be the basis for an article but the critics of the site are not going to abandon the dispute over other facts as long as administrators and other associates of EE insist on making it a promotional piece or even a review of the site. Some of the negative things entered were an over reaction to EE staff being involved.
What is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article is the patent. Just about anything else is going to fuel an argument. It would be a shame to lose the article. My preferece is not to delete it, but if it is not about the patent, then there is nothing to qualify it for a Wikipedia article. There are thousands of Internet sites just like EE; forums where experts answer questions. The only thing different about EE is the patent. While there is very little research; and not much in the way of independent reviews, there is the fact that the patent exists and is the basis of a point and grading system that makes them unique. whether they are a unique tech support site, or a unique game can be debated, but that does not belong in a Wikipedia article.
I guess the best is delete, and hope that we get an article based on the patent at some point.
COBOLdinosaur 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article, added sources for many of the statements, and included more information about Experts Exchange there. I would like to ask people who voted a delete here, to check the article again and see if they still vote for its deletion.
Thank you. huji—TALK 14:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced except for the link to the homepage, this collective seems to fail WP:N. janejellyroll 11:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (with egg on my face). So... I should pay closer attention to the history. Most of those "more than just the author" edits were attempts at speedy deletion, which the author removed. Silly me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - brenneman 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable webcomic, fails WP:WB, no reliable sources. I was quiet baffled reading the first AfD debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greeneyes, where arguments for keep are used like "Simultaneous story threads as an approach is of artistic signficance. Use of elements for chapter headings is of artistic significance. Anonymity of writer and illustrator is of artistic significance." (by a current admin, no less!) I don't see how the way this comic is created is in any way an indicator of notability. The only claim to notability is that the author of another webcomic liked the way Greeneyes played with colour, and imitated it, and that another webcomic artists contributes to it,and mentions that in passing This is rather trivial, and does not constitute multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources (the bare minimum asked by most WP:NOTE guidelines. This webcomic has only 18 distinct Google hits[34] (looking for greeneyes without the author gives many, many unrelated hits, and it seems hard to have a non-trivial mention that doesn't name the writer of the comic anyway). No significant awards, no significant reviews, no independent book published, no major reviews, ... Fram 10:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. He directed an 18-minute film? Good for him. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested db of scandal-bio; sources have been improved, but not enoughTikiwont 10:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. I... yeah, I obviously crossed the line on this one. I unfairly bunched Ford in with other articles I'd deleted images for... at the very least, yes, I should have done a Google search. All the more reason to stop editing Wikipedia when I'm already tired... That said, some actual sources for any of the claims in the article would be really, really nice (though I understand that AfD isn't the place to take cleanup requests). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician, unverified assertions of notability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this listing. I enjoy his music, Quite talented.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.14.136 (talk • contribs).
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 10:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization that operates two anime conventions and a manga library. There are numerous organizations in the world that operate these sort of conventions. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a shoddy automated translation of the Italian article. Gilliam 06:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Fails to assert notability (unless you count one of the first schools in Northern India to offer the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program); the school has been in existence since 2003. You don't get an notability from an article, but the other way around. Seems to be a vandalism magnet, littered with unsubstantiated defamatory comments. I don't think we need this headache. Josh Parris 02:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a religious cult that gains inspiration from an air and water pump in Chessington, there are no relevant hits on Google apart from the article itself and claims to have ~2000 members. I am nominating this because I believe it to be unverifiable, non-notable, possibly original research and a possibe hoax. I've asked for sources on the talk page, but no such luck. WikiSlasher 06:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot, it was a contested prod as well.
The result was Redirect to Hackathon. PeaceNT 15:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but does not really qualify. Appears to fail WP:NEO and has no references or evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Tregoweth with reason nonnotable/vanity. Kyra~(talk) 06:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not satisfy WP:BAND, also seems to be a WP:AUTO Alex Bakharev 06:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was elete ~ Arjun 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't have any wp:reliable sources for wp:notability. I looked for sources on google but I couldn't find anything that wasn't promotional material for himself,[41] or his show.[42] [43] So as yet, I'd say non-notable, delete. — coelacan talk — 07:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete ~ Arjun 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability in the article, seems to fail WP:BAND, and the entire article lacks sources from K37 07:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like a fannish advertisement for one of many, many licensed toy lines, with no sourced claims of notability. The only claims of notability are unsourced fluff ("instant best-seller" according to whom? By what standard?), and the bulk of the article is an unencyclopedic collector's checklist guide.
This was prodded, but was deprodded without comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice due to lack of reliable sources. --Myles Long 00:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A recent AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Bucked, included the articles Get Bucked and Buck the World, and reached consensus to delete. However, the article Buck the World was not properly tagged as part of the group nomination, and the editors of the article seem not to have known about the AFD. Therefore, I have undeleted the article and re-nominated it, to avoid the appearance of bias. The primary concern in the prior AFD was lack of reliable sources for this not-yet-released album. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 07:36Z
The result was No consensus. if the page must be deleted please renominate. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 03:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like self promotion; no known notablility. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 07:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 10:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person is unnoteworthy asside from being born to someone who is noteworthy. Fredd727 08:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
small unknown leader. Doesn't warrant a article because he is not powerful. Therefore, fails WP:BIO and WP:notable
User:kkiloo 8:29 UTC
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cobbled together from unreliable sources, original research, and hoax. The supposed medical journal paper was made up for a joke article on ridiculopathy.com. The hoaxer managed to invent a vaguely plausible title, but apparently thought The Lancet was a monthly. —Celithemis 09:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although it may have been created in good faith, this article is based entirely upon hoax and joke sources. Delete. Uncle G 11:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Navou banter / contribs 03:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable gaming products company. Article(s) on products have been previously deleted as spam. No independent sources. Drat (Talk) 09:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, redirect to LOL (Internet slang) and protect. - Daniel.Bryant 09:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable web site claiming notability; neither claim (London Times "Best Website" award, Rolling Stones "Best-Kept Secret of the Web") can be verified. Looking at the site itself it is just a message board which does not appear to have any claims to notability (I didn't look very closely since it made my brain hurt. That is not a reason for deletion in itself, of course.). Was previously removed in 2004, see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Lolarcoaster - since that was an old system I'm not sure that qualifies the page for speedy deletion. Bonadea 09:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 10:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same as Xuly Bet. Up for speedy delete, tag removed. A non-notable fashion brand. I decided to nominate them seperately, because this article has just a bit more content than the one above, and also, I don't know how similar they are, so I don't want to put them in the same argument. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 07:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 10:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod for this non notable prayer day. 31 distinct Google hits[55], and even those aren't all for this day. Seems to have received little attention in 2002 (first time around) and none since (searching for the official name, "International Day of Prayer for Autism", gives only 6 Google hits, none of them by reliable independent sources[http://www.google.be/search?hl=nl&q=%22International+Day+of+Prayer+for+Autism%22&btnG=Zoeken&meta=). From the sources (the BBC One, given in the article and via the google search is the only notable one in my view), it looks as though this yearly event got some (but insufficinet) attention the first year around, and none since then. No multiple reliable independent sources with non-trivial coverage indicates that this event isn't notable enough for Wikipedia (per WP:NOTE). Also WP:COI concerns with author of article. Fram 11:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 12:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no G'hits for this fellow other than self-promotion articles (which includes this article). It is unreferenced, fails COI, notability and probably a few other things as well. Somebody has made some disparaging remarks at the bottom of the latest version of the article. A firm delete from me. --Richhoncho 11:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent self-promotion of non-notable unpublished book by non-notable author, who according to the article is "a teenage who live in a little place in Norway called Geilo." (sic) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morten Vebjørnsen. ChrisO 11:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent self-promotion by non-notable unpublished author, who according to the article Gibraltar (novel) is "a teenage who live in a little place in Norway called Geilo." (sic) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gibraltar (novel). ChrisO 11:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 10:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barry Sears created a diet, and that appears to be the limit of his notability. The diet is Zone diet, which is listed on Wiki. Apart from the Zone Diet the man appears to be non-notable. I suggest a redirect to Zone diet. SilkTork 11:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect. Navou banter / contribs 03:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name of this album is not No.7, it is self-titled "Kottonmouth Kings" and there is already an article for it at Kottonmouth Kings. You can visit http://kottonmouthkings.com/media_kmk.php for citation proof of this. War wizard90 11:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am really not sure about this one. It may be a very legitimate article. However, it seems to be wildly (fanatically, even) POV, and I think it COULD be a recreation of something, judging by the creation comment of the author. Also, the author is a suspected sockpuppet. Very unsure what is to be done about it. J Milburn 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hindus are entitled to their own beliefs! This whole argment started when Hindu articles kept getting deleted. Hindus are not allowed to post their views on Wikipedia because they will only be deleted reguardless of any so-called "discussions."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.32.179 (talk • contribs).
The deletion proposition was issued by vandals who are very racist. they do not want Hindus to show their viewpoint. First vandals would not permit Hindus to post their viewpoints on the Gautama page so I designed the Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu page and even the Hindu viewpoints in that were mostly deleted. Now this is proposed for deletion. Then where should Hindus post their viewpoints? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HinduDefender (talk • contribs).
Quote: "Wikipedia is not the place for ANYONE - be they Hindu, Buddhist or of any other faith - to post their points of view. This is an encyclopedia, not a debating chamber, and wiki policy is that articles shall not express points of view, save only by second-hand attribution." Response: Yes, indeed it is an encyclopedia and because the topic is Lord Buddha from the Hindu viewpoint, it should be recorded in the encyclopedia rather than being deleted just because some fools want to hide Hindu viewpoints about Lord Buddha from the world.
The Buddha talked about the Sanatan Dharam and the Arya Dharam and Nirvan. Do you neo-Buddhists have any explainations for that?
This article has to remain to educate people on the Hindu Buddha!
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly original research. Delete unless converted to a legitimate article. J Milburn 12:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, also per author request. Sandstein 10:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Vaguely defined list page of people somehow related to cocktails. Delete or merge with cocktail - Jvhertum 12:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn wrestling show, many ECW shows (non-ppv) have been deleted in the past Booshakla 23:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A redirect to cloak and dagger can be created, but is probably unnecessary. —Doug Bell talk 13:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a neologism apparently made up by the creator, a literal translation from the German de:Mantel-und-Degen-Film. To boot, "cloak and dagger" has a different meaning than "Mantel und Degen", it's about spies and agents and has nothing to do with musketeers and the likes. There are some Google hits for "cloak-and-dagger-film", (the number jumped from 255 two weeks ago to now 700, however most of them clones and only 69 true hits (see [56])), but I can't find any evidence there of this term being used for what the article says, and not even for a film genre at all. Hence, I had proposed the deletion, however the article's author, User:Wittkowsky, apparently German just as I am, objected. H005 12:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete fiction. No corroboration of any sort on Google - indeed, not one single instance of this name in any connection at all. This article was originally prodded, and the tag removed by the creator with the note that "Verified sources and made minor changes. This page should not be removed as it is true". I beg to differ. HeartofaDog 12:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated as part of same group the articles Fabulous! and Roy Montgomery Adams - Google is totally silent on these also. I had prodded them, but it seems more effective to deal with all three together here, given that the first one above was deprodded. HeartofaDog 12:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save Bob's Wikipedia I find it almost insulting that you suggest removing Bob Lundeberg's page. Anthony Bradbury and HeartofaDog, you both have no right or duty to do so. As his agent and close friend I can vouch for his existence. I am not surprised that he is not found on a Google search as he does not have a website and is considered, as mentioned in the article, an underground rockstar here in the Willamette Valley who is most-publicized through posters and local literature. Mr. Lundeberg deserves to be recognized on the internet and my only intention was to give him that sense of fame by dedicating a Wikipedia page to him.
As for Fabulous and Roy Montgomery Adams, simply because a Google search brings up nothing cannot be considered valid grounds for deletion of the article. Have you stopped to consider that, as in Lundeberg's case, any published material is found in local newspapers and magazines and not on the internet? Leave them alone, Mr. Bradbury; as far as you know, they are completely valid articles.--Samorado 11:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am kinda confused. I worked as a set designer for fabulous. I agree with Samorado, a lot of stuff from local newspapers is deleted from their databases. It's kind of insulting in fact that the only place where we can get recognized for our work even a little bit, everyone wants to delete us.--Allmighty Jimbo 12:11, 11 February 2007
The result was delete and protect from recreation as potentially dangerous hoax. Sandstein 10:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected hoax. Couldn't find any references. Chris 12:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged WP:CSD#A7 but asserts notability.Reads as promotional text, looks like a copy and paste from a website somehwere, and the claim to notability is weak and lacks a credible source. No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Subject uses the name "Sparkman", creator is WP:SPA Sparkmanforever (talk · contribs), either a fan or the subject. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It fails to establish its notability, no reliable sources, no verifiability, etc. Ayatollah's hashish 13:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unverified/OR and probably CoI entry for Swiss university band. Except for bot edits, this had been pretty much untouched for a year [62]. No sources have been cited. Google produces 62 unique hits [63] with this article at number 2. No evidence this meets WP:NOTE/WP:BAND. -- IslaySolomon | talk 13:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus leaning towards keep. —Doug Bell talk 13:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Person is not notable, comparison with other workers leaders overstates notability Sparkzilla 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carlet is just one of a group of people within the organization that have garnered press and this is confined to the past few years. If you were to look at news articles you see other names representing the unions.Osakadan 23:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With creating the annual March in March in Tokyo in 2004, he has come to be known as a pioneer in the civil rights and migrant workers' rights movement in East Asia This line is a total exageration and should be deleted if not the whole article. Pioneer? There are numerous other foreigners and Japanese who have been working in this field for decades longer than Carlet. And the March in March is considered a joke by many, including union members as it belittles the fact that many Japanese workers face the same labour problems that Carlet holds up as being discriminatory.Osakadan 23:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care either way if the artcile is deleted or not, But I think having articles on people have appeared in the news a handful of times is ridiculous, especially when the article says nothing of importance. I also wouldn't delete an article on the basis of a few opinions and would hope it waits until more people have weighed in with an opinion.Osakadan 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have no views on the notability of this article - if it was reworked I would say KEEP. It is important to note that a check of the posting history of the nominator of this AfD, Sparkzilla, shows that this user and editors on the NUGW (in which Louis Carlet is intimately involved) page have been in conflict for some time. Sparkzilla introduced the criticism section on that page linking to Metropolis magazine. It should be noted that a conflict of interest arises, due to Sparkzilla's intimate involvement with Metropolis ( a crisscross publication). A RfC, or RfA or simpler remedy, by interested parties, will show Sparkzilla's past IP's to fall within that of the IP block assigned to crisscross.com by apnic. It would suggest that this AfD is not motivated by a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia.
WP:COI states:
Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but if you have a conflict of interest, you should exercise great caution. In particular, you should:
- avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
- avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.253.85.230 (talk • contribs) date.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably hoax article, should be speedy deleted. RMS Oceanic 15:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speedily or not, no verifiable official info has been released. SpikeJones 16:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has multiple considerations for it's AFD. The primary statements in the article that support its notability are mostly limited to "an Egyptian journalist and writer who has had multiple articles published, many by The Wall Street Journal". The article appears to fail WP:N and many statements fail WP:V
Note - the section listed as References is in reality a bibliography it is a list of works the person has written, not a list of articles about the person. There is little doubt this title needs to be changed but as I (User:jeepday) Prodded the article and am now submitting it for AFD, I did not want to complicate the issue by also editing the article.
AFD submitted by Jeepday 15:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography per WP:BIO. An article with this title was previously deleted as a result of an AfD discussion here, but "((db-repost))" failed because apparently it was not the same person (see this). RJASE1 15:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three reason,
Dr Tobias Funke 16:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was put up as an A7*, I don't think it's an A7, but may be non-notable. I abstain. Deco 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another overzealous Batman article. Unencyclopedic, an essay consisting entirely of original research and fan speculation. ~CS 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against an article explaining what a court calendar is, or the different forms it takes.... but this article seems to not be that but is intending to be a list of internet links to all US (and potentially world) court calendars. Wikipedia articles should not be "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories" (WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIR). I didn't feel comfortable just deleting all the links and stubifying the article - as this effectively would mean deleting the page - without opening a discussion - any thoughts? Madmedea 17:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a memorial - Cybergoth 17:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to have been created by the artist himself, based on the licensing associated with the displayed image. Fails WP:BIO as far as any evidence (or lack thereof) is concerned. Planetneutral 17:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO Nv8200p talk 17:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious notability, probably nonsense Feeeshboy 18:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tempted to move this to BJAODN, actually. ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OR, unreferenced and created by a rarely-used role account. Google turns up no references. Delete. fethers 18:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual. I guess an article could be written about 'mother of the bride', but this isn't it, and it wouldn't be a good idea to leave this until someone replaces it with something else. JoanneB 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, hoax. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod disputed without explanation by article author. This is a hoax if I ever saw one. For as famous as this guy's illness supposedly was, googling for "bradley anderson" "chief ambassador" turns up absolutely nothing. "bradley anderson" "ambassador" does turn up an article of ours, but that only lists an Australian ambassador (not even chief) who was born in 1949, and that name was recently added by an anon and the spelling changed a little bit later by the same person who wrote this article. "bradley anderson" by itself turns up lots of results (common name), but nothing at all about an ambassador. (Also nominating Maria James, a redirect page to this one, created about the guy's supposed "wife". I can find nothing to support that either.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone here agree with this suggestion?? There may well be another Bradley Anderson who is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, but this one is not the person. --sunstar nettalk 12:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per consensus of established users. --Coredesat 19:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This previous AfD related to a New York organisation. The present article relates to a UK one so it can have a new AfD. Is it notable? -- RHaworth 18:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On December 14th 2005 the ploice were called due to claims of arson and trespassing, as well as criminal damage, 2 members of the groups in question were detained but released with out charged when supspect dropped all charges under certain circumstances. On July 21st 2006 the police where alerted to a ring of criminal activity involving assault,fraud,criminal damage and arsonistic behaviour. On both occasions mentioned several criminal objects and illegal substances were confiscated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.46.130 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to write about canon law scholars, and found this. A blog. Wikipedia is not a web directory. The talk page has various weblinks that it claims establish notability; I disagree. One story, linked to multiple times, merely quotes the blog's author about the subject of Jewish blogs. One other story mentions it among other similar blogs. This does not establish multiple substantial coverage per WP:WEB. Sandstein 19:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, no sources, possible hoax (not credited on IMDB, see [73]). Prod contested by author w/o explanation. Author has previously added unsourced and unverifiable information to Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive. --N Shar 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep without prejudice for relisting at the appropriate xfd. . Navou banter / contribs 03:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated redirect page, useless otherwise.Totalinarian 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable holiday, possible hoax, possibly something made up in school one day. Originally tagged as a speedy, was removed by an editor saying that holdays are not covered by A7, which I suppose is true. I then prodded it, and it was removed by an anonymous editor without any reasoning. It was the only contribution of its author, and the removal of the Prod was the only contribution of the IP. Delete, unless sources are provided. J Milburn 19:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable (see WP:BIO) composer added by himself. Billlion 19:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 01:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Metacomment: I previously closed this debate, but it was contested and upon reviewing the AFD I agree we need more input; therefore I have reopened and extended debate. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 19:44Z
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While indubitably useful, this article does not belong here, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, with no sources, it's impermissible original research, as the article itself admits: "It is hoped that bloggers will update this page often to make it as complete as possible." Sandstein 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional league; violates WP:NOT Mhking 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: If this were an article proposing that the GFL was a "real" league then sure, grounds for deletion. But, the article clearly states that it is describing a "Fictional League" as pertains to a work of fiction. The Wikipedia is packed with other descriptions of elements from other fictional works. How is this one different? We have an entire entry on the Weapons of Star Trek yet none of them are real, there is a list of the companies named in the Star Wars canon: List of Star Wars companies which is strictly fictional, and there is a list of the faux Mandarin curse words used in Firefly: List of Firefly slang words. I might note that the individual who posted this deletion actualy is a contributor to the Star Trek articles. Perhaps one might say that the other articles describing fictional elements from things like Star Trek, Star Wars, and Firefly are describing more popular works. Since when is Wikipedia a popularity contest? The fact of the matter is Scott Sigler is a groundbreaking podcaster and if anything is even more eligible for note as he is at the vanguard of a new media movement. I fail to see how there is any merit to this. Granted the article needs cleaning up, and I have posted a banner proposing just that. However, since it is describing an element of a podcast that is still in continuing production I have to imagine that the cleanup will be a continuing issue as well.
The result was speedied. Grandmasterka 02:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not very notable software, reads as advertisement, submitted by a user Oraspeed Alex Bakharev 20:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was The result was Keep. Merging is a separate editorial option which can be discussed at the article's talk page. Shimeru 12:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable extraterrestrial species in Larry Niven's fictional Known Space universe. Fails WP:FICT. Proposed deletion, but removed by 198.82.125.211 without edit summary. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thoroughly indiscriminate collection of unsourced, unverified information that provides absolutely no context for any of its entries' importance to their points of origin with the exception of links to those very rare fictional foods that are notable enough in themselves to have articles. We do not need a list of every single fake food from every single Letterman Top Ten List, one-time sight gag or passing background billboard ad from every random TV show, magazine, book or movie. Otto4711 21:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Loads of claims of notability but even if this guy is real, he's not notable enough for any article of his own. JoanneB
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unveriable, original research. The absence of citations suggests that this a slang term whose meaning varies to some extent from city to city and year to year. Even http://www.urbandictionary.com has few entries for it, all from 2004 - 2005, and no consensus. Fayenatic london 21:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, ignoring the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS agruements. Jaranda wat's sup 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thoroughly indiscriminate collection of unsourced, unverified information that provides absolutely no context for any of its entries' importance to their points of origin with the exception of links to those very rare fictional beverages that are notable enough in themselves to have articles. We do not need a list of every single fake drink from every single Letterman Top Ten List, Simpsons episode, one-time sight gag or passing background billboard ad from every random TV show, magazine, book or movie. Otto4711 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was spam. Grandmasterka 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an advertisment. No reliable sources. Asserts notability, but no indication it meets that requirement. Yuser31415 21:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seam to meet the criteria for WP:FICT; not notable, no real-world connection, looks like fancruft. Also the article was started by a user with a number of vandalism warnings - article maybe a hoax.--Bryson 21:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is mainly the work of the banned User:Hkelkar and a now-blocked Primetime sock, user:Cardreader. The subject is a wesite which has been taken down. The article is largely self-referential. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I know that may look strange, but this is in fact exactly the same as the deleted Off By One (browser) article. I would call this a G4 speedy delete, except that this article apparently predates the other one. As it stands, I felt that since the same article was under discussion, I would consider the balance of comments in both debates, which clearly shows a significant consensus for deletion. Mangojuicetalk 04:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a duplicate of Off By One (browser), which was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off By One (browser)) a little over a month ago with all votes in the AFD for delete. It also has no talk page. The last nom said, "OK, I am not entirely convinced about notability of this product. It seems to me to fail WP:SOFTWARE. In particular I do not see "multiple non-trivial published works", nor does it seem to be a "core product of a notable software developer or vendor". It seems to be a minor, experimental product, still in early stages of development. A browser that does not support CSS and JavaScript would be severely crippled and hardly suitable for real use, as the image of Wikipedia front page shows. On the other hand I may be entirely mistaken. It's for the Wikipedia community to decide." SakotGrimshine 21:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Navou banter / contribs 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have undertaken heroic efforts to neutralise this article, but it is irretrievably tainet by the work of User:Hkelkar and ban-evading socks thereof. The cited sources appear not to be mainly about the group, merely to mention it. Some of them are now 404 anyway. There are also links to User:Primetime. I don't think we need the aggro. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to British North America, with later mergers of some of the content subject to editorial discretion. The term "Loyalist Six Colonies of the Nineteen Colonies" is apparently original research, as it does not google outside this article. Sandstein 08:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal content, only a list of British Colonies that didn't join the American Revolution and thus derivative of Thirteen Colonies, British North America, American Revolution and British colonization of the Americas. --Duke of Duchess Street 22:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DukeOfDuchessStreet. This article is in development. I am adding content and the CORRESPONDING REFERENCES, as time provides. It would seem that for now I'll concentrate on adding BONE-FIDE REFERENCES (you know those things like PUBLISHED BOOKS).
As per your comment on the article being "derivative" of the Thirteen Colonies article, I respectfully do not agree. The article the Loyalist Six Colonies of the Nineteen Colonies is "complimentary", in my opinion. What it illustrates is,
(i). There were 21 British Possessions in Continental North America up to 1775 (i.e., from 1607-1775),
(ii). Of those 21 Colonial Units, there were,
(iii). The 19 Settler Colonies all had LOCAL LEGISTATURES, thus were Provinces within the British Empire , (e.g., the Province of East Florida),
(iv). That the correct term for the British Colonies in North America prior to 1783, is that of British America and the British West Indies,
(v). That the correct term for the British Colonies in North America after 1783, is that of British North America and the British West Indies.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 10:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the information in the article, the band fails WP:MUSIC. Article is sourced only by the band's website. Although the band has multiple albums, I don't think the labels are prominent enough to count under guidelines. janejellyroll 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Alphachimp. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:31Z
I applied the PROD template to several non-notable entries in Category:The Carpenters songs, but an anon went through and removed all of them without explanation. I will list each song separately, as, per precedent, this seems to be preferred, but the reasoning is the same on all: They show no real level of encyclopaedic notability, even though I've no doubt they're fine songs. They were not released as singles. Information about them can be discussed on their respective album pages and, in one case, in the article about the Make Your Own Kind of Music TV special. That said, there's not exactly much information on any of these to merge. I apologize if anyone resents the recycling of this AfD reasoning, but all of these articles are of such a similar nature that I feel it's appropriate. GassyGuy 22:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Carpenters (album). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:31Z
I applied the PROD template to several non-notable entries in Category:The Carpenters songs, but an anon went through and removed all of them without explanation. I will list each song separately, as, per precedent, this seems to be preferred, but the reasoning is the same on all: They show no real level of encyclopaedic notability, even though I've no doubt they're fine songs. They were not released as singles. Information about them can be discussed on their respective album pages and, in one case, in the article about the Make Your Own Kind of Music TV special. That said, there's not exactly much information on any of these to merge. I apologize if anyone resents the recycling of this AfD reasoning, but all of these articles are of such a similar nature that I feel it's appropriate. GassyGuy 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Carpenters (album). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:32Z
I applied the PROD template to several non-notable entries in Category:The Carpenters songs, but an anon went through and removed all of them without explanation. I will list each song separately, as, per precedent, this seems to be preferred, but the reasoning is the same on all: They show no real level of encyclopaedic notability, even though I've no doubt they're fine songs. They were not released as singles. Information about them can be discussed on their respective album pages and, in one case, in the article about the Make Your Own Kind of Music TV special. That said, there's not exactly much information on any of these to merge. I apologize if anyone resents the recycling of this AfD reasoning, but all of these articles are of such a similar nature that I feel it's appropriate. GassyGuy 22:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Carpenters (album). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:32Z
I applied the PROD template to several non-notable entries in Category:The Carpenters songs, but an anon went through and removed all of them without explanation. I will list each song separately, as, per precedent, this seems to be preferred, but the reasoning is the same on all: They show no real level of encyclopaedic notability, even though I've no doubt they're fine songs. They were not released as singles. Information about them can be discussed on their respective album pages and, in one case, in the article about the Make Your Own Kind of Music TV special. That said, there's not exactly much information on any of these to merge. I apologize if anyone resents the recycling of this AfD reasoning, but all of these articles are of such a similar nature that I feel it's appropriate. GassyGuy 22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Carpenters (album). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:32Z
I applied the PROD template to several non-notable entries in Category:The Carpenters songs, but an anon went through and removed all of them without explanation. I will list each song separately, as, per precedent, this seems to be preferred, but the reasoning is the same on all: They show no real level of encyclopaedic notability, even though I've no doubt they're fine songs. They were not released as singles. Information about them can be discussed on their respective album pages and, in one case, in the article about the Make Your Own Kind of Music TV special. That said, there's not exactly much information on any of these to merge. I apologize if anyone resents the recycling of this AfD reasoning, but all of these articles are of such a similar nature that I feel it's appropriate. GassyGuy 22:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:33Z
Violation of WP:NEO--neologism with two ghits, one to the article page, and one a comment left on the article creator's home page not to create patent nonsense. Nominated for speedy delete on December 5, but the tag was removed which I will treat as a contested speedy. For some reason, it wasn't followed up on. Wehwalt 23:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (Withdrawn by nominator) with no objections. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Jerry lavoie 20:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very unlikely to ever satisfy WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:34Z
Obvious non notable neologism as evidenced by 0 g'hits, possible hoax. Contested speedy Daniel J. Leivick 23:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Freak on a Leash. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:36Z
All of the info alredy mentioned here is alredy mentioned on the article Freak On A Leash. Armando.O (talk|contribs) 23:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:37Z
Fails WP:MUSIC unless there are some sources out there that I wasn't able to find. janejellyroll 05:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Passes WP:MUSIC national radio play requirements Artist has over 90 songs surveyed in the ASCAP Ace database as having received domestic (nationwide USA) performance on commercial & college radio stations. This artist has full publisher membership in ASCAP which would indicate verified commercial CDs releases at the the national level. AudioJin
The copyright owners hold exclusive distribution, public display and publishing rights to all content related to this topic and the Federal Trademark. Per the copyright holders terms of use / copyright policy Wikipedia would have to first seek permission to use their trademarked brand in an article (a public display). A good portion of this articles content is merely derived from several pages in the copyright holders site and thus only the copyright holder can authorize derivative works under US Copyright law. I would venture the content is coming from fans of the artist who are unaware there are music specific Wikis out there better suited to helping chronicle the achievements of artists they like and more open to featuring indie artists. Interesting read and good listening, but per Wiki guideline suggestions better to delete and motivate more detailed research from the zealous fans, which may result in the article being re-added later in better format and not merely cloned content from the artist official site. The artist may very well be notable for mere longevity by indie artist standards but the article needs to be original and not a mere reprint of content from an official artist web site. The same would hold true for any recording artist indie label or major. Wikipedia simply can't clone content from official artist web sites. I would also venture that any recording artist, record label, or publisher would prefer for fans to land on an official web page and not an encyclopedia article of cloned content when doing a google search. Helps their CD sales :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.149.212.108 (talk • contribs).
The result was Redirect to Bong. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:25Z
Wikipedia is not censored, however, does Shottie really need its own article? By the articles own admission, it is a variation of the Bong and has no sources to show its notability RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia. Not every comedy bit requires a separate article. If this bit appears on one of Carlin's albums then perhaps a redirect, although I doubt anyone is likely to search for "Bleen (number)". Otto4711 23:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to the season's article as the probably most consensual solution. Mergers are an editorial matter and can take place from the history. Sandstein 08:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sixth-placed contestant on Canadian Idol and subsequent Roving reporter. This "up and coming star on the Canadian stage" scores 214 unique Ghits, mostly to Canadian Idol articles or wiki mirrors. Pretty obvious that she's not "there" yet. Ohconfucius 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to the season's article as the probably most consensual solution. Mergers are an editorial matter and can take place from the history. Sandstein 08:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unsuccessful TV talent show contestant, who released a CD following the show ranked in the 629 thousandsths per Amazon.com. No other notable achievements to date. Prod contested by User:Badlydrawnjeff. Ohconfucius 10:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to the season's article as the probably most consensual solution. Mergers are an editorial matter and can take place from the history. Sandstein 08:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsuccessful Canadian Idol contestant. with assertion of notability of having been "second in the Central Canada Exhibition youth competition". Borderline, in my view, brought here for consensus. Ohconfucius 10:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:29Z
This is a decent article, but the subject appears to fall well below the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. Not only is there no evidence of non-trivial independent coverage, the one album they have released is self-funded and was recorded in one of the band's bedroom(!); they have contributed single tracks to some other albums of no evident notability. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep (non-admin closure), WP:POINT nomination. Yuser31415 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Tom Butler 00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC) I have submitted EVP for deletion. I will follow with ITC.[reply]
The reason for this request for deletion is that:
1) Wikipedia rules restrict content of the EVP entry: Wikipedia:No original research. Virtually all of the work done to study EVP and related phenomena has been classified by editors as original research, and therefore, the subject cannot be factually represented in Wikipedia.
2) A survey of the people studying EVP, and therefore the people who are sufficiently knowledgable to provide factual content , will show that virtually all of them have a conflict of interested as described by Wikipedia editors: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
3) It has been demonstrated on numerous occasions that many of the editors contributing to the EVP entry do not have the background in the subject to distinguish valid information from out-dated or simply erronious information. Exclusion of EVP subject matter experts assures this to be a continuing problem.
4) There has been a continuing conflect between people who want demonstrated fact to be presented and people who discount those facts as not demonstrated by mainstream science. Even when agreement between the two vieupoints has been reached, it is sometimes only a few hours before new conservative editors begin pushing the point of view to make EVP sound like we are delusional. When I firs tcame to it last Novemeber, the AA-EVP, and therefore EVP was being discounted because I am a Spiritualsit.
5) With this new wave of editors came new determination to keep people who want EVP to be factually represented from participating in consensus building. One of the arguments for why I could not edit the entry was that there are references to the AA-EVP, making it a conflict of interest. My solution was to remove those references, but in response, I was blocked from editing for "editing wars." At the same time, one of the new editors was in an edit war over tages, but nothing was done to correct this.
Based on Wikipedia rules and the evidence of the EVP talk pages, it is clear that EVP should not be in the encyclopedia because it is not possible to arrive at and maintain a consensus. Determination to have the EVP entry has already produced negative publicity for Wikipedia, which will only eculate while EVP remains a public contest between skeptic and "proponents." Tom Butler 00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]