< January 27 | January 29 > |
---|
The result was Keep per consensus – PeaceNT 07:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This amalgam of original research and fantasies from various works of fiction is utterly devoid of sources. ➥the Epopt 00:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism that is not the subject of reliable third-party sources. Delete per WP:NEO. Chardish 00:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense, you must keep!
Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey! Uncle G 03:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I've got this straight. A "Chewbacca defense" is one where the prosecution's side is presented as too complicated to be convincing:
...or use a "Chewbacca defense" (thanks to the South Park TV show for this phrase) and try to razzle-dazzle the jury about how complex and complicated the other side's evidence or probability estimates are. [2]
No, wait. It's a defense that's "based on physical possibility that someone else committed bad act" [3].
This source seems to agree; though it never explicitly defines it, it gives an example of a Chewbacca defense as a "prevalence of computer vulnerabilities and malware technology that allow unknown persons to access one's computer [presumably to commit a 'bad act']."
But no, wait. The "Chewbacca defense" is actually a postmodernist's dream, "in which someone asserts his claim by saying something so patently nonsensical that the listener's brain shuts down completely."[4]
Maybe the experts at the Purdue U. conference can help me understand? Nope, all they give is the title of a lecture: "Poking the Wookie: The Chewbacca Defense in Digital Evidence Cases".
Then, this unreliable source suggests that an essential element of a Chewbacca defense is the use of "technical jargon" that most juries wouldn't understand.
Ah, now I understand! What we've got here is a classic neologism that's not even fit for Wiktionary.
Now, it is conceivable that even without a coherent definition of "Chewbacca defense," we could still support a Wikipedia article with this title, if various reliable sources were found that discuss the concepts denoted by the various meanings of "Chewbacca defense." But what we've got are unclear powerpoint presentations[5][6], uncited non-peer-reviewed course notes[7], blog posts [8][9][10], and totally unhelpful references in The Guardian and The Associated Press[11][12].
<tongue in cheek>As for Uncle G's Chewbacca defense of Chewbacca defense, note that "Johnnie" begins with the same phoneme as G -- as in Uncle G. Coincidence? I don't think so. Remember that the Chewbacca defense is used to confound, not clarify! I submit that Uncle G, like Johnnie Cochran before him, doesn't really believe the result he is arguing for!</tongue in cheek> Pan Dan 10:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all not marked as valid disambiguation in total 15 votes delete (mixed in with keep disambig. delete rest votes), 3 keep all, 3 relist and 1 merge. Feel free to bring back any page as a valid disambiguation.--Jersey Devil 05:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This a series of names taken from the Indian given names category. Some in that category were valid disambig pages, or articles, but the following should be deleted, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and all they do is define the name. Perhaps some of these will make valid redirects, disambigs or articles. I am happy to withdraw individual nominations. I am also nominating-
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Munishk Gupta. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can understand, this list is supposed to contain either (1) instances of confusion over history topics, or (2) instances of confusion over placenames/peoples throughout history. I don't think that either criterion is, of itself, particularly notable. In the first case, the list would essentially be a result of something that happened in school one day. In the second case, the list would seem to violate WP:NOR, be potentially unmaintainable, and be (again) unnotable unless the importance of these confusions was specified. My second (or fourth, depending on how you count it) reason for nominating it for deletion is that it adds little or nothing of encyclopedic value (after all, Wikipeida is an encyclopedia) as evidenced by the facts that:
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
disputed PROD for NN-freeware media player. delete Cornell Rockey 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep --Durin 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:MUSIC. The first few attempts to delete were thwarted by a stagnant ((hangon)) and a pro'd removal. John Reaves (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note additional references below that are not included in the article text. 2 articles on Culture Northern Ireland 1- [13] 2-[14]
2 articles on BBC Northern Ireland Across the Line 1-[15] 2-[16] 80.76.203.84 13:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Please also note that the previous AfD tag was removed at the request of the user who placed it. As shown here [17] 80.76.203.84 13:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The article can be considered notable, as argued by User:80.76.203.84--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus --Durin 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listed for Speedy deletion as a CSD:A7. There is a claim of notability on the talk page and in the article that one member was in another notable band (The Golden Republic (band)). I'm not sure they meet WP:MUSIC but I don't think A7 applies here and the Speedy was contested so I'm listing it here.--Isotope23 18:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Scooby-Doo (character). --Durin 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A character who briefly appears in one episode of A Pup Named Scooby-Doo. Highly non-notable. FuriousFreddy 01:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism definition. More suitable for Wikitionary Jvhertum 14:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By not specifying the notability of these companies, the article violates Wikipedia is not a directory and WP:Notability (companies and corporations). Of the six toolmakers listed, the first four lack WP articles (two are redirects to other pages). Moreover, even if all of these pages were created (presupposing that they are all notable), then they should probably be listed in a category (e.g., Category:Toolmakers in the United States) rather than on a list. Black Falcon 01:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it has the same flaws:
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because of this forum post, 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)) |
No assertion or indication of notability, only the company's own information cited as a source. Significant WP:COI issues (being edited to a good extent by User:Animesouth, who was found to be using socks during disagreements regarding inserting links to the article elsewhere). No indication why this would pass WP:CORP, WP:ORG, or WP:N overall. Seraphimblade 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and move to proper name, leaving redirect --Durin 21:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy. Author claims WP:MUSIC 1 and 2 would apply (assuming that she did have a gold record and that Top 40 is a "hit") but no sources. Neutral. ColourBurst 19:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, despite above. Most links above are blogs (unreliable and/or primary sources, especially fanblogs), and only one source (first one listed) is nontrivial and appears to be reliable, which fails being the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable sources, the notability requirement. Number of fans etc. is irrelevant, nothing in the notability requirement refers to "is popular". Looks like she may be on her way to being notable, however-if a few more sources write about her, deletion should be without prejudice to future recreation. Seraphimblade 11:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to keep per additional sourcing, but move article to subject's proper name (this one should be left as a redirect) to fit formal tone. Seraphimblade 23:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork of material originally in (and deleted and then readded several times see Talk:Rush Limbaugh) Rush Limbaugh ElKevbo 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company as far as I can tell; only links or references are to the sites of the companies mentioned. Article itself just barely contains enough factual-sounding assertions to pass the adcopy test. Opabinia regalis 01:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Largely reposted content previously deleted A7, but it does make a stab at asserting notability. However, '6th out of 100 webcomics listed at topwebcomics.com' may not be the most solid claim to notability. The guy himself gets just over 1000 google hits, with us first, which is never a good sign. Opabinia regalis 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The unsourced claim that this tribute band is currently touring the US is the only concession made towards meeting WP:MUSIC. I have no idea if the standards for a tribute band are any different than the notability standards for a non-tribute band, but I would argue that this band is NN. janejellyroll 01:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 03:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposedly an album from Nicholas Strunk, so if you're interested in the theoretical existance of that subject, please see that AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Strunk. It seems as if a Nicholas Strunk does exist and that he has released at least one single, but these articles have little to nothing else to do with the reality. Sources are very difficult to come by. The author of both articles has repeatedly removed the "hoax" tag I placed on this article without adding sources. Statements in the article to the contrary, billboard.com shows no entries for this artist. Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in question. ghits for company: [46]. NMChico24 02:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The person about whom you referred, posted libelous information about Montres Allison and Terry Allison. If my tone seemed hostile to you, please understand that Newt43 caused any hostility that you are perceiving in my tone and comments. Repeating defamatory statements is not a defense against charges of civil nor criminal libel. He should not have continuously posted information about which he had no first hand knowledge and that he knew came from sources that were not accredited members of the press nor organizations well-repsected in the community for consumer complaints. He took disparaging information posted by practically anonymous authors and replaced earlier, accurate information with the disparaging information. He should be ashamed and should be punished for acting in such a manner. Thank you.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They've got five records, but zero sources attesting to WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Article was requested for speedy deletion by an IP editor, who asked me to start this debate since IP editors can't create the page as is necessary. I am neutral. Mangojuicetalk 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the name suggests, the article is about a cinema in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The article is very poorly written and could almost be speedied as spam as it includes details on the discount prices on nachos. I suppose I could simply clean that bit up. However, I feel that there is simply not enough in there to build anything resembling an encyclopedia article. Pascal.Tesson 03:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Wikipedia is also not a dictionary. NMChico24 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was moved to User:John254/Homosexuality and medical science and tagged with an appropriate "non-article" notice per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The page may be moved back to the main namespace when it is brought into compliance with these policies. Complete deletion is not justified, as there is significant interest in improving the page. John254 16:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a common topic name or search term. Artical is a non-neutral mess and contains no references, and has been this way since 2003. Linked to by as many redirect pages as it is other articles. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete CSD A7 here. Navou banter 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of non-notable individual. High school wrestler and college cheerleader does not seem to meet notability standards. Cannot find any references on web. Glendoremus 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep.--Jersey Devil 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Long established club admittedly but no statement that it has done anything notable and no multiple non-trivial sources. I prodded this but the prod was removed after 6 days with the comment "enough incoming links not to be prodded". In fact, apart from redirects and a DMB, the only incoming link is one that I added to the locality article! Delete. Bridgeplayer 04:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of References Proposed to be Deleted:
The result was redirect to List of Kansas State University people. - Daniel.Bryant 03:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creating deletion discussion for List of Kansas State University Distinguished Alumni because this article was a simple cut-and-paste from List of Kansas State University people, and the latter is the accepted naming format for lists of people related to universities. (To call it a list of alumni it is inaccurate inasmuch as it also lists faculty, etc.) Further, there is a high potential for confusion having two nearly-identical pages, so this one should be deleted. Finally, the original List of People has been updated while the article proposed for deletion has not. Kgwo1972 04:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC) On second thought, should I just make this a redirect? Kgwo1972 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars included in Gran Turismo 4. Unnotable listcruft.--PCPP 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research and wishful thinking. As well as being unsourced and a neologism. While there are efforts to make lobbying more transparent to the public, there isn't a generally accepted "open lobbying" methodology. And the article's premise that open lobbying is something that NGOs participate in contrast to corporations engaging in non-open lobbying seems to be entirely without evidence. The article is POV and un-savable in its current form. In case it's unclear, I'm in favor of deletion. Siobhan Hansa 04:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to The Elder Scrolls, satisfies everyone :) Daniel.Bryant 03:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In a nutshell: talks in-universe and addresses extremely minor and unimportant character. I came across this article a little over a month ago, and it's in the exact same state it was back then: stub status, POV is horridly prevalent, and it addresses a character that isn't even physically in a game. Needs to be deleted. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 04:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd placed a "notability" tag on this article, but the author removed it without comment. Fails WP:CORP janejellyroll 04:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created within the past 48 hours. It asserts that the individual Ticu Isari is the founder of a television station, but no reliable sources are given to support this fact. In fact, Google gives 200 hits concerning this individual, the first of which is his own website. As no reliable sources can be given, this article should be deleted until any are provided.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertisement and challenged. Not blatant in my opinion; listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 05:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Delicatessen. - Daniel.Bryant 03:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced, difficult to verify due to the production of other uses of the term in web search results, and does not assert the notability of the surname described. John254 05:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete (no place given to merge to). Cbrown1023 talk 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge The character is not notable enough for his own article. Plain and simple. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit me § Contributions ♣ 05:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Mark D. 09:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist Mhking 05:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 12:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're working on various songs and they're going to be ready to play live by April. One guy does guitar and vocals--"sort of." I placed a speedy deletion tag, but an IP user removed it saying they didn't think the article should be deleted. janejellyroll 05:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable actress/porn star Part Deux 07:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanispamcruftisement, creator was BGModels (talk · contribs). Contested prod. MER-C 07:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable losing election candidate, fails WP:BIO. Contested prod. MER-C 07:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable summer camp, no assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 07:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable summer camp, no assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 07:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete — G11 (advertising), A7 (notability), G7 (author request - see MacMonster's final coments in this AFD). — ERcheck (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable online D&D resource. Fancruft and WP:NOT#OR #2 and WP:NOT#SOAP #2 and WP:NFT. JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 07:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and rename. Majorly (o rly?) 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory. Contested prod. MER-C 07:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rumours. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- RHaworth 07:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No information to merge into List of The Buzz on Maggie episodes, so Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 03:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The parent TV show is not notable enough to have this level of detail. Crufty. Contested prod. MER-C 08:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO as subject is an entertainment personality with non-widespread recognition. as a quick google search will confirm. Personally, from Australia, I don't know him from a hole in the ground. Contested prod. MER-C 08:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even really sure what this is, but it seems to be an OR essay. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This idea is not original research. It is simply the case that this article is unreferenced, badly written, and incorrectly titled. Feel free to take the sources cited above, and the many more sources than a simple search for the common name of the concept (the "Swiss Cheese model") will turn up, and cleanup the article. Uncle G 14:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A seemingly non-notable holiday. No reliabe sources are given (and I can't see the Facebook page), and good ol' Google gives 13 results. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete TOMMAROW is Maverick423 day! Im ganna celebrate by sitting around and playing games on the computer! (after work of course) Then on April 23 is Maverick423's Birthday YAY im ganna celebrate it and so is my family and some friends. So lets write a article about Maverick423's holidays yes?... i thought so Maverick423 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced (WP:RS), unverifiable (WP:V) listcruft (WP:NOT) of "popular" gay pairings of anime characters. Considering 90+% of this list is mostly within a given series' fandom and not at all canon, it also fails WP:FICT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a single gig played by Mandy Moore. Not an actual live album - no ascertation that this gig is notable in any way. Kurt Shaped Box 09:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1 2 3 this one is moore peforming cry on shoutback. it fits th date because moore's hair is still blonde Those are just a few. I doubt anyone you did any home work. Or you would have found it. people stop just jumping on the bandwagon when there s something to delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parys (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The result was Speedy delete — A1/A7. — ERcheck (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no context, nor assertion of notability Ozhiker 09:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:ERcheck (nn-web). SpuriousQ 14:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable site that stores copyrighted videos off the net. The article makes no allusions to notability and doesn't explain what the site is about. The information provided on the Wikipedia page isn't borne out by anything on the YouSponge.com website, and is even contradictory in some cases. Also the page creator is the owner of this site and has been spamming Wikipedia with links to it of late. Ben W Bell talk 09:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Direct content fork of a table from 0 to 60 mph where there is currently a discussion about the need to include that table in the talk page. I think it's best that until the discussion is resolved there, the article in question ought to be deleted. tommylommykins 09:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The result was redirected and moved. MER-C 01:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of National Grammar School, Pakistan. I propose further to move National Grammar School, Pakistan to National Grammar School. Shorelander 09:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, WP:V and WP:MUSIC still haven't been fufilled to any satisfactory standard despite five days passing since the plea to "wait for the sources" below. - Daniel.Bryant 03:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one is pretty good. I was suspicious because he's just 15 or so, but I realized that some rappers are young. Then, while researching I happened to find the Lil Wayne article. Most of "The Ridder's" biography is actually Lil Wayne's. Google turns up a few references to a rapper called "The Riddler," but he'd be older than this guy. Hoax. janejellyroll 09:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable art movement, no articles link to it. Candy-Panda 09:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable religious booklet, no articles link to it. Candy-Panda 10:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable evangelistic video course, article created for the purpose of adverting. Candy-Panda 10:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be the only mention of this "publication" online, maintained by the author, including a review to which he is linking. So nonnotability, COI, vanity, take your pick. Shorelander 10:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The discussion was rather idiosyncratic, but anything with zero sources fails WP:NOR by default. Sandstein 19:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural. I discovered that this article had been tagged and no follow-through had been done. Neutral janejellyroll 10:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion after transwiki to Wiktionary Vadigor 10:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary and nom. Jeepday 15:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only claim of notabilit is a myspace page. Google only finds a few not particularly relevant sites. Carabinieri 11:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only claim to notability is having invented sledsking. Its article is currently also on AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-TREAM Sledsiking Carabinieri 11:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 12:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
obvious vanity page Chris 11:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a spoof. Only hits on Google come from Wikipedia or mirror sites Grahamec 11:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
vanity or spoof page Chris 11:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable actor as per WP:BIO Yonatan (contribs/talk) 11:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4 – recreation with identical content, and WP:CSD#G7 – Author requests removal. ~ trialsanderrors 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As before, there does not appear to be any documentation of this "breed" in reliable sources. There is not yet a standard of notability for animal breeds, but this breed does not appear to meet any of the criteria that have been proposed:
Little appears to have changed from the first nomination, except that some of the claims which were proved false have been removed. Most importantly, there are still no reliable sources documenting the breed's existence. Hence, I don't see any reason this article should have been recreated. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-Strongish Keep: "Breed" not registered by American or British Kennel Clubs, but Ghits indicate (a growing?) interest. Then, of course, we have the Cockapoo and Labradoodle articles. Both of which are non-registered but popular "breeds." Srebob 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)srebob[reply]
Comment -- Please be sure you are excluding wikipedia, its mirrors, blogs, advertising sites, discussion forums, etc. when you check for Ghits. I have seen a copy of the article printed in the small Finnish paper that is cited in the article. There may also have been an article published in the journal Our Dogs that the article's proponent removed for unknown as of yet reasons. Please read the article's talk page where I and some others have asked several questions. Keesiewonder talk 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There is a link to the first attempt, up in the nomination, under the hyperlinked word "before." Ghits, in my opinion, are usually useless. Unfortunately, just like anyone can edit Wikipedia, even more anyones can put up a web site. That is all Google is categorizing. Also, please list either here, on the article's talk page, or in the body of the article itself the "multiple hits that would support WP:N"". I have literally searched for hours and found nearly nothing that I consider useful, except possibly a local interest article written only in Finnish and one other article that I will probably have to pay money for in order to see since no one who wants to keep the article has been able to provide me with a copy. Hmmmmmm. Keesiewonder talk 16:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep: AfD withdrawn by nominator. -- The Anome 23:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refused speedy deletion. No ascertainment of notability. WP:WEB failure. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refused speedy deletion. No attempt made to establish notability. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that this list is notable enough for Wikipedia. I just can't see any establishment of notability. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established. Is it worth saving? Sure. Just not on Wikipedia. Get a website and post it there. MakeRocketGoNow 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable event, comes as part of a larger parent with no article. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to spinal disc herniation. No actual deletion seems necessary here; RFD would undoubtedly agree that this is a useful redirect, and the edit history needs to be maintained behind the redirect for GFDL compliance. There have been claims that this article should instead be a disambiguation page, but no sources have been provided to indicate there is anything to disambiguate between. Discussion regarding shortcomings in the target article or possible needs for disambiguation should be discussed at talk:Spinal disc herniation before reverting the redirect. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 03:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article should have been deleted when a new article (Spinal disc herniation) was created to replace it. The creation was successful and included all relevant material from the Slipped disc article. Unfortunately it was not deleted, and was only replaced with a redirect. Please delete Slipped disc. Fyslee 11:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT ABOUT CONFUSION Do not vote keep for the article, only for a redirect. The article should be deleted. This vote is not about the redirect, which of course should be the only thing left in place, so vote delete. -- Fyslee 12:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Slipknot (album). Article's context already exists at merged target; no references were provided to assert independant notability. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 03:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot possibly have an article for every song in existance. It is not feasible. There are some attempts made to establish notability, but their really rather frivolous. If I tried hard, I could do the same for almost any song. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 12:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable television program, has few links to it. Candy-Panda 12:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism, has no sources or references, has no links to the page other than a disambiguation page and a user-talk page. Candy-Panda 12:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, few pages link to it. Candy-Panda 12:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a work of fiction, has no references and is written in an entirely unencyclopedic manner. Localzuk(talk) 13:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to House of Shammai Johntex\talk 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent WP:HOAX. Article purports to describe a modern group described in the present tense with links to articles on 20th century events with only "source" a general quote from the New Testament that appears to require interpretation (from another source) to justify a claim that it applies to any particular group. Shirahadasha 13:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. Reading through the myriad of opinions here it is pretty clear that there is no consensus to delete at this time and no clear consensus to keep the article in it's current form either. Suggest continuing discussion on the article talk page.--Isotope23 18:14, 2 February 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)) |
Non notable IRA terrorist. Seems to be written to make a POV attack on the British Police Astrotrain 13:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK, no one actually wants this deleted, and the idea of merging or redirecting can be discussed in an appropriate forum. GRBerry 19:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another in the list of ill-defined, hopelessly POV, bordering on OR, unencyclopaedic lists. Nuttah68 14:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/League of Heroes. The page is non-notable and a recreation, and the subject's existance is questionable. Delete. Grand Slam 7 | Talk 14:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete; notability, verified by multiple independant third-party reliable sources, haven't been provided. - Daniel.Bryant 02:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, the 'official website' is hosted on freewebs. Delete. J Milburn 14:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, The T Team here to shed some light on this little discussion. Several days ago, a young man named Elijah (see earlier comment) told us about how he had set up this little page for us on wikipedia. We had no desire to join good ol' wiki, but this young chap seemed to think we were important enough. We thanked him. Unsurprisingly enough, the article immediately came under scrutiny, mainly due to our unfortunate.....lack of funds, as it were, to get an actual domain name.
Side note for a minute, a quick message to J Milburn, your comment about free domains being non-notable....stupid. I'll have you know that professional wrestler Rick Steiner (one half of the tag team voted the second greatest of all time in North America by Pro-wrestling Illustrated) uses freewebs, and I'd call him pretty goddamn notable. Stupid comment.
Anyway, it's pretty clear to us that the article is hated, so we're more than happy for you to take it down. We don't need a wikipedia article. It was just something a young man decided to do to give back to the group he so loved, thinking others too would enjoy learning about this team. After all, in an encyclopedia that dedicates an entire article to "Allip" (yes J Milburn, that's a note to you), surely they encourage everyone to contribute whatever they can. Surely a great encyclopedia would cover as many topics as it possibly could? There are some articles with no external links or websites referenced at all, yet this seems fine as long as no freewebs sites are mentioned. We'll pass on the message to Elijah that for all future articles he hopes to set up, to put no websites at all to stand a better chance at not being deleted.
Well, that's all from us. We appreciate you taking an interest in our group, and hope you get a laugh from it here or there. This whole discussion has sort of made us wonder what you guys could possibly get out of scrutinising others peoples works. It makes no difference to you if these articles stay up. You put a lot of time into your articles and they put a lot of time into theirs, yet you say theirs aren't important enough for a website that you dont even own. You're just another brick in the wall. I wonder how many people have left this site in anger after they put a lot of time and effort into their own articles, only to have a Dungeons and Dragons nerd delete it. Sad, in a way. Anyway, that's by-the-by. Take it easy, guys
Signed, The T Team —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.191.159.13 (talk • contribs).
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, appears to be non-notable. I am open to being proven wrong. J Milburn 20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it me or are you the most boring people that ever lived!? There are many entries that read like a biog, that's part of what makes an encyclopedia an encyclopedia. Also if Wikipedia allows its pages to be moderated by a 16 year old tit that knows nothing about nothing and clearly has nothing better to do with his dull existence, then I would be delighted to remove the offending article myself. Evidence of my books being published are on the Welsh Books Council site if you would care to check. Oh, and my Voyage of Nomad book was reviewed in Buzz magazine, that's a South Wales arts and entertainment guide if you know as much about that as you do Welsh poetry. Who is notable? Certainly none of you pathetic individuals. That probably doesn't meet God knows how many of Wikipedia's idiotic pointless directives which are a complete contradiction on what is a free encyclopedia, but who cares. KH
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence this is a notable organisation, other than a website created by the page author, User:Jlove12, who also claims to a vicar in the Church of England, yet is aged 15 PMJ 15:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by User:RyanGerbil10. MER-C 01:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an apparent hoax, and references an apparently nonexistent medical journal. John254 15:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 03:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is comprised entirely of a plot summary, contains no specific references, and concerns an apparently non-notable episode of a comic strip. John254 15:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to be kept-- the article is written at a third grade literacy level. * Keep now that its been rewritten. Allon Fambrizzi 23:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
The result was Merge. Cbrown1023 talk 03:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is questionable, and this article has been in essentially the same useless state for more than a year. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced, and written in an unencyclopedic list format. John254 15:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted early, a7 - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this article about an Australian high school principal was recently speedy deleted (see User:Mangojuice/a7) but recreated. Not sure whether the recreation was by the same editor but in any case, AfD seems like the way to go for re-deletion. Pascal.Tesson 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a directory. Please also see an entry I placed on the article's talk page. Keesiewonder talk 16:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was "Keep". Agent 86 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Non-notable session musician with about 500 G-Hits to his name. kingboyk 16:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 03:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This league is strictly a reserve league. We have articles for the reserve leagues of the Premier League and the Football League, which are reasonable I think, but the reserve league of the Leicestershire Senior League is not notable. By virtue of it being a reserve league, it's not actually in the pyramid, as it falsely states in the article. Balerion 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend deletion as per WP:N Piddle 17:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think this article will be deleted as I did create an article on Cafe Creme cigarillos - it was wiped after a week with no discussion which I personally thought was wrong and the Wikipedian who did it should be ashamed of themselves.
Aside from that - people have made an effort with this article, and have put a picture of the brand too. It deserves to have work on it before deletion.
Many articles on this site would not appear in a normal encyclopedia. But this is no ordinary encyclopedia. I think if you delete this sort of article (aside from the arguements on health of this product - lets not forget artciles on BUrger King are bad for your health too) then other articles such as companies, majority of celebrities should be deleted too PrincessBrat 20:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison was made simply because there are a lot of 'celebrities/sportspeople' on this encyclopedia who are not that famous outside their profession - by all means have an article on someone like Charlie Chaplin they are very well known but other celebrities who are still alive and not that famous, such as some soccer players who are on here is pointless - so on that basis if your going to keep the non celebrities/sportspeople why not keep other brands of cigarettes which are not that popular. Let us not beat about the bush, you wouldnt see this or some soccer player article in Encyclopedia Britannica would you?
I hope that this article is not being considered for deletion due to its content matter -i.e tobacco and someone who hates smokers is proposing its deletion. If it is, can I say that it is unlikely a non smoker would find this article and start smoking based on the content. I for one wouldnt! --PrincessBrat 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 03:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:V 999 (Talk) 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Benfer is a Newgrounds flash artist and claymation filmmaker. He also seemingly has the most vocal on-wiki internet fanclub, having been himself and his related projects being deleted here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Indeed, if you click through to those links, you'll probably find even more deletions. If you look on Talk:Knox, you'll find an unrelated user supporting the inclusion of Robert "Knox" Benfer into the list just to stop edit wars and vandalism. This article refers to Benfer's latest project, his first full length claymation, made and distributed by himself. This is not a notable release, there are no third party sources, it fails WP:NF (film notability guidelines). - hahnchen 02:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of this info is in the Greeley Estates article. I'm not convinced this article will be relevant to anyone 50 years from now. MRoberts <> 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new band that hasn't even sold an album yet. It belongs on MySpace, not in an encyclopedia. MRoberts <> 17:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. John254 19:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a POV fork of Women in Muslim societies John254 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and cleanup. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sister of an important religious figure, but it's unclear how she's notable by herself. Her name, in some obvious spellings, gets low-3-figure Google hits. Also, per the tag in the middle of the article, all or part of it may be a wholesale copyvio from two books (which however don't appear to feature her as the principal subject). Sandstein 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewirte: I agree maybe the article does need re-wording in some places, however Bebe Nanaki Ji, is of great historical importance in the Sikh Faith. The reason for my humble contribution to Wikipedia was to add valuable insight into the life of the first Sikh of the Sikh faith. As well as being the first sikh, she was also a woman, which has far reaching conoltations in regards to one of Guru Nanak Dev Ji's core messages of equality between men and women.
She also played the pivotable part in the recognition of Guru Nanak Dev Ji as an enlightened spiritual leader. There was a unique relationship not just as the first sikh but also as a Sister.
Admittedly there is not nearly enough reference material regarding her life, which is also another reason for posting the article.
If you could all make suggestions in the areas you think that need work, i am sure that the work could be accomodated rather than deleting the article as a whole. I think this would be an injustice to the readers of wikipedia. The fact is people come to wikipedia to learn about something that they did not know before they came to read its pages. I am sure a fair number of people read the articles around Sikhism and Guru Nanak Dev Ji and as such it is a shame that such a prominent Sikh Figure as Bebe Nanaki goes without a mention on Wikipedia.
Forgive me for i am a literary novice with the best of wishes.
Kind Regards, Jaswant Singh Sagoo 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jaswant Singh Sagoo 15:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:V 999 (Talk) 19:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus Cool Hand Luke 02:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:V. It's been tagged as unsourced since August 2006, but no sources have been provided. 999 (Talk) 19:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, of course, that those are only some of what I could find from google--there's likely much more in print-only format. --Jackhorkheimer 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editor of the house paper of the Seventh Day Adventists. No other claim to fame, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable vehicle from a video game, no reason to have articles on every vehicle from this or any game. Daniel J. Leivick 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The counter part of the t39 bogatyr is the L5 riesig and it has an article too so either they both stay or leaveDestroyer 65 22:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: "Very little is known about her by her small cadre of fans". Quite so. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Robdurbar 14:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable game character. Wikipedia is not a game guide, WP:NOT Daniel J. Leivick 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, patent nonsense and self-admitted neologism. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an entirely unreferenced article concerning a neologism. John254 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable indy wrestler. A google search turned up a Fred Sampson (that isn't a wrestler), fan sites such as OWW with Fred Sampson on it, and so on. The TV.com link just lists his WWE appearances: which isn't that notable either. WWE is known to hire indy wrestlers for matches and segments. Because Fred has done a bunch, he is notable for Wikipedia? I don't think so. If we had wrestling bio articles for everyone WWE has used for matches and segments: Wikipedia would be flooded with tons of cruft. This article is better suited for a wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 20:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Results your way Govvy 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a personal note, I think the user RobJ1981 was doing this to attack me. Govvy 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I read through some of the copyright stuff and I couldn't find anything directly addressing the notion of including text while asserting "all rights reserved" as this article does. If there's something else besides a regular AfD that needs to be done, point me toward it. Regardless, the article is trivia, non-notable and without independent verifiable sourcing so it needs to go. Otto4711 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--Jersey Devil 02:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 and deleted, but restoration requested so I'm bringing it here. No evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, sole claim to notability appears to be one member who was briefly part of a barely-notable band before they were barely-famous. There are only 49 Google hits in total, 35 of which are unique, none of which appears to be a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If non-trivial coverage is an overriding criterion, then I agree, as I cannot locate any press about Dupobs, and indeed the google hits are as you describe, for what that's worth.
But since this is a guideline open to interpretation and flexibility, we should consider the case on its merits, and according to criteria relevant in the world of music. The criteria for Notability:Music apply here, don't they? Reading the article would indicate that the crossover in band membership is current (a simple perusal of the relevant band URLs confirms this) - even though that shouldn't matter -, so the charge that the 'sole claim to notability appears to be one member who was briefly part of a barely notable (sic) band' is incorrect (emphasis added).
As regards the band upon which Dupobs relies for its claim to Notability, I don't know what you mean by 'barely-famous', but I had thought fame was not a criterion for Notability. And if said band satisfies Notability (by association with other undisputed notables, and by multiple, nontrivial coverage in independent, reliable sources), I fail to see how you can make the claim that this constitutes "barely-notable". I don't know what that concept means; I cannot find a definition for it in Wikipedia's guidelines. Do we really need to create such categories? --Jeandjinni 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: notability and fame are exclusive. And seeing as fame is not a criterion for notability, the article should not be deleted. I doubt a deletion would be considered were dupobs to comprise a member from a famous (not just notable) musical group. Also keep in mind that searching the internet is not necessarily an effective means to determine notability for musical groups that were in existence, and ceased to be active, before the proliferation of the internet, as was the case for another music group (not the one meeting notability criteria) comprising one of dupobs' members (see article). Consider also the cross-reference to PRISM international, which, according to its website, has published works by highly notable authors such as Jorge Luis Borges and Margaret Atwood. Interestingly, there's no article for PRISM international on Wikipedia. So who's to determine what's notable or not? The article should stay.
The result was keep. --BozMo talk 09:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing early: no votes to delete and arguments have convinced me as nominator for AfD.
No visible notability. Prod deleted by user with name matching subject of article. Looks like non notable author.--BozMo talk 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity books? Are you kidding? Three are in the Museum of Modern Art's Artists Books Collection. Two are reprints of books published by independents, including Straight Arrow. Another of my books was published by Workman. I design and publish my own work because that's the only way that I can have 100% creative control. "Freedom of the press is limited to those who one one." A. J. Liebling. I take that really seriously. Well, what the hell, Wikipedia is all just one big vanity press -- and now it wants to cull out people like me. AlterNet.org is non-important? This is really silly. It reminds me of a fraternity hazing. --Jules Siegel
I'd like to add that Jules Siegel is not only a notable author, but also a notable person, one that should not be deleted. -- Sharon Secor
A friend has pointed out to me that the vanity remark refers to the fact that I wrote my own entry. That's right. I am a self-referential artist. My work is about me and what I see. That's the only truth I know. It's the only truth I believe. Anything else is hearsay. I used to write about Very Important People -- Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, Thomas Pynchon -- for very large publications. A time came when I realized that my own life was what I knew best and that was what I should record.
Go ahead and delete it. If someone else chooses to restore it, that's fine with me. Dumped from Wikipedia for writing my own brief bio. From Wikipedia?. It's just the greatest! I love it. --Jules Siegel
I don't profess to be a Wikipedia expert, but Mr. Siegel appears to meet the "notability" test for authors set forth on the Wiki help pages that "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Perhaps he can elaborate, particularly with respect to the "art" and travel books. -- Jack Lebowitz Jackl2400 17:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Lineland: Mortality and Mercy on the Internet's Pynchon-L@Waste.Org. Record. Cancun User's Guide. Mad Laughter: Fragments of a Life in Progress I don't know why I am doing this. I am pathetic. Masturbating in public at 71. Help. --Jules Siegel
Last entry. Now I get it. I'm losing points for defending myself. WP:VANITY. Reminds me of [Bobby Seale]] bound and gagged at the Chicago Seven trial. Interestingly enough, I interviewed Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, and Bobby Seale, four of the seven, for "Revolution," Playboy, March, 1970. But let's not get that heavy. Go ahead and delete me. I give up. Wikpedia has rules. You've got to know those rules. Other people have to point out that I am notable. Other people have to delete the delete Jules Siegel notice. [Slaps head.] How could I have been so stupid! Now I'm not going to be in Wikipedia and I am banished to the dustbin of history. That's what I get for talking back. Will I never learn?
Keep it. Siegel is a noted author with an compelling life story and an established body of work, who has been widely recognized by his peers. It seems to me the wikipedians are getting a little heavy-handed with their wanton purges based on an overencompassing vanity criteria. Self-submitted entries should be scrutinized certainly, but this should not be solely used as a convenient and to my mind, somewhat lazy excuse, to delete. Surely if his work is considered important enough for MOMA, that alone should render the request to delete moot. -- Libby Spencer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.79.132 (talk)
Keep -- his work is in the Museum of Modern Art; that gives him a certain level of notability that at least equals a lot of other people who have articles in WP.--Bookgrrl holler/lookee here 14:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I've been reading the work of Jules Siegel for decades. To leave him out of Wikipedia is narrow-minded and misguided. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference. Refer to him. David Goen Dsgoen 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Jules is a genuine person, reputed writer. While it is not proper for a writer to write about him/herself in an encyclopedia, the things Jules has written are sourced and not out of the blue. Nixdorf 08:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, article about a real town; nomination withdrawn. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a place in India was clearly written by a few users who are unfamiliar with how to write a good article on Wikipedia. I am not making a statement about the notability of the place. However, as it stands, the article needs a complete overhaul at the very least. If an expert on the geography of India can shed some light on this, that would be great; otherwise, it may need to be deleted. YechielMan 21:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also including in this AfD the rap group and individual artist:
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
contested prod, non notable individual. Natalie 21:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article full of original research on a non-notable webcomic. /Blaxthos 22:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Low number of Google hits suggest that 'mall emo' is a non-notable neologism. The article seems to contain mostly original research, as none of the sources/references listed contain the term "mall emo". I am also nominating the following as the articles on the listed bands don't mention "mall emo" as a genre.
mikmt 22:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment. Assuming this article does get deleted, be aware that the creator has added this to a bunch of other pages. Those should probably be removed to discourage recreation. Natalie 20:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
they have apparently removed the article themselves. Natalie 20:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced bio of a "legendary" musician, born in 1980, who is now in "early retirement." No sources for anything and it reads as if it was written by somebody with firsthand information of the subject. I did a google search for Thomas Johnson" and "bluegrass" and only came up with a mixer, no mentions of a musicians (The name is common, so I guess I could have overlooked something). Fails WP:N and WP:V and as far as "legendary" goes, I'd even say this might be a hoax. janejellyroll 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very minor modification of the software Media Player Classic, such a minor change does not afford it its own article. In addition, it is not notable enough for an article. Qutezuce 22:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A whole list of teenaged vanity namechecks and uncited information, spam links to things whose articles have been deleted and other sundry nonsense. This is the job of the Newgrounds FAQ, not an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as non-notable group of people/spam. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little evidence of notability, unreliable sources given. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable company. It lists many "films" based on popular game franchises, but none of them are licensed by the owner of the games, yet they are still "negotiating" to get the rights. The page was created as self-promotion by the company itself. Qutezuce 22:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 23:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. No assertion of notability. Fails to satisfy any WP:CORP criterion. Valrith 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look like he meet criteria on notability. He is just a student Alex Bakharev 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete the page, defaulting to keep. It is very likely that this would survive a new listing anyway. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense; nothing more than an elaborate hoax. Technostalgia 23:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
all i know is, if this article had been deleted, i would still be trying to get google tv. please keep it up.
"If this makes it into major media like the NYT, then it will be a notable hoax." Why should an electronic public encyclopedia use foolish standards of inclusion, when there's no limitation of print, pages, or storage? The notion of a useful standard of "notability" is an idiotic enterprise, on the part of wiki policy. ALL MANNERS OF MINUTIAE are "notable" for somebody somewhere who has cause to find information that particular thing, at some point in time. The Infinite Solutions video exists in the world. Secondly, people have already taken the cell-phone/network video seriously. If anybody wanted to understand whether the videos were "real" or "fake" a wiki would obviously help. To assert that the hoax isn't "notable" because there's no big-media mention, and therefore that it shouldn't be included in wikipedia, is nothing more than snobbish ignorance. (By the way, the suggestion that NY Times coverage somehow inherently lends "authoritative"ness to any issue or topic, or set of facts, is extremely naive.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.132.160 (talk • contribs)
The result was Speedy Keep No reason to speedy the nomination; but I am closing it per WP:DENY.--Isotope23 17:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what makes these events any more substantial an professional wretsling event than the hundreds of other professional wrestling events? Not sayin i expect em to be a WrestleMania but a separate page for all of these vents seems very weird. Maybe merge them to IPWA EVENTS?
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reason listed above:
Jarfullofempty 23:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, serves really no purpose. William Pembroke(talk) 21:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]