The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This stub article lacks any verifiable sources, and may not even be a true notable historical figure. With no verifiable sources, a history article is inherently worthless. Per "Burden of Evidence": "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --Kuuzo 17:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect and merge Adam Cuerden talk 14:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable middle school. Sourced only to the school web site. No indication that the school is in any significant way distinct from may other schools of its general type. DES (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No third party sources showing notability, quick Google source does not reveal any as well Aboutmovies 23:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Asserts no notability; has no sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 23:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 21:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep Adam Cuerden talk 14:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesn't establish notability and is unsourced. Chealer 21:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MADEUP and WP:OR. This is an article is original research and its content is non-notable. -- Wikipedical 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as completely non-notable student film, utterly unverifiable crystalballism. Sole support for the article is most likely from sockpuppets. Pascal.Tesson 04:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be an amateur/student film; no evidence of notability or verifiability, zero Google hits for the film title in conjunction with either of its stars. Contested prod. ~Matticus TC 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable charity, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 21:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website which doesn't even exist yet. Fails WP:WEB. Corvus cornix 21:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 07:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 21:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE I'd consider a merge, but it is all unreferenced - I'm willing to undelete the history if anyone wants it for a merge - but they'll need to be prepared to reference every entry. -Docg 08:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of girlfriends of the members of the England football team at the 2006 World cup, and as such I suggest it falls foul of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Tim! 20:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Though my spider-sense detects a looming deletion review, the arguments to delete, in my opinion, outweight those to keep. The list is split by state so is in essentially the same format as Category:Synagogues in the United States. Mallanox 12:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NOT as a directory. Clarityfiend 20:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commentators on this AfD may also wish to consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of synagogues
The result was merge with Cincinnati Mighty Ducks Adam Cuerden talk 14:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - similar to many other recently deleted pages for similar lists, this is an indiscriminate directory of loosely-associated topics. The inclusion criteria are a bit on the broad side, capturing songs from which acts took their names and songs which have pre-existing musical act's names in them. Beyond that, the songs have nothing in common beyond happening to have a music act's name in the title. As trivial as the many other lists of songs deleted, including: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English songs whose title includes the name of a landmark, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with the word "song" in their title or lyrics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English songs whose title includes the name of a fictional place, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes a phone number (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that are also the name of a TV show, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes dates and times. This was nominated once for deletion in 2004 with a result of "PAGE ALTERED significantly to make the vote invalid." Otto4711 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and apparently unreleased web game that fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:WEB. Was prodded for deletion five days ago, and unprodded by the game's developer today, without explanation or any attempts to explain notability. McGeddon 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. No good sources Peacent 04:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not assert the subject's notability (WP:CSD#A7, however it has survived an AfD before, with no subsequent improvement). Article has peacock terms and reads almost as an advertisement. Article cites zero sources, and appears to be original research. I tagged it needing serious work over a week ago and nobody seemed to take notice. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 18:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Banno 21:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
autobiography strongly discouraged by WP:AUTO and subject non-notable in any case Barnabypage 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Funpika 02:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is about an annual online event that is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Funpika 16:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Adam Cuerden talk 02:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another list of covers. As with the article for Hendrix covers (deleted) and for other lists of covers, it is not notable that the band happened to perform a song in concert. Released recorded covers which are notable should be noted in articles for the songs or in the Foo Fighters discography. I added the released recordings section to that article (and it requires sourcing). This article should be deleted. Otto4711 15:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and remove infringing information where appropriate. Krimpet (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed speedy delete.
Anthony Appleyard 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mallanox 12:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been started and conducted with only one 19th century racist source. It alleges that the well known tribe of Awans which was as a major land owner tribe and some parts as an aristocratic ruling tribe, was somehow in subjugation to the Pathans in the NWFP, which is not only incorrect but derogatory. Please see the discussion page of this article for further info. The author only states one NON LOCAL source for the evidence of this assertion. The word Hamsaya simply means neighbour. This article serves no purpose and is actually an insensitive and offensive to entire tribe which runs into millions. Raja 14:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“ham sayah, n.m. Neighbour”
If an entry on this particular term is to be included on Wikipedia, then the above – and variants on this definition – is the only definition that reflects a realistic, accurate and generally understood application of the term (as opposed to the bastardised definition limited to the Pathan community), both in the past and present. Furthermore, does this mean that Wikipedia is also going to serve as a Hindi-Urdu dictionary for mundane words used in everyday conversation?
As for proof that the term, as outlined by the article, is derogatory, please refer to comments I have reproduced below, that I originally left on the Hamsaya discussion page. You will discover that the author of the source that Intothefire pointed to in support of his article (S.S. Thorburn, a district officer of the Punjab who compiled the source material in question during the nineteenth century, 1876 to be precise, the title of the work being, Bannu: Our Afghan Frontier, and the section of the source material that has been highlighted, detailing various old Pashto proverbs which are quite frankly, flimsy material for a Wikipedia article), actually states himself that the use of the terms Hamsaya and Hindkais/Hindkis – terms which are interchangeable – are based on Pathan prejudices and jealousies and even during the nineteenth century did not reflect the reality of the situation vis-à-vis the Awan tribe; in fact, Thorburn states that use of the terms Hamsaya/Hindkais, as applied by the Pathan community at the time, cannot even be justified. Please also note additional reasons I have provided for the use of the term Hamsaya, as defined by Intothefire’s article, as leading the reader into making assumptions about the Awan tribe that are disingenuous and worse still, possibly giving the impression to some that use of this term (which as I have stressed, as outlined by the article, is problematic) is currently applicable:
Intothefire
You state that the source you use for the Hamsaya article is widely used on Wikipedia, yet you don’t seem to understand one simple point – the term as defined by your article is now redundant (not surprising, considering the age of the source material used), something that your article does not clarify. The source you provide a link to is a proverb, based on Pathan prejudices. Tell me, do you think that old derogatory proverbs coined by the English in regard to the Welsh and the Scots, should still carry any weight and relevance in this day and age? The word Hamsaya also has a variety of meanings and though you may claim that others can go ahead and include these definitions in the article, Wikipedia is not a Hindi-Urdu dictionary and to define the term as the Pathans used to, is inaccurate and misleading.
As I said, I have spent time in the NWFP and have to inform you that the term is no longer applied as your article outlines, ergo, your article is irrelevant as it does not recognise present day realities. A significant number of those belonging to social groups that were in subordination to Pathan groups, have now experienced a change in fortunes (as is to be expected over the course of time), yet another reason why the term, as defined by your article, is outdated and irrelevant.
I have demonstrated that I have no problem in admitting that there are Awans who were and still do belong to the poorer elements of society (true of all Punjabi Muslim groups of a generally accepted high social ranking such as the Awans) and as a result, found/find themselves in the service of others, but the spin your article puts on this is to give the impression that this is the general condition of Awans found in the NWFP and its neighbouring regions, which is complete and utter nonsense. Firstly, amongst the descendants of those Awans residing in the NWFP, who were in the service of certain Pathan groups in certain localities (such as Bannu) a significant number have experienced a change in their fortunes. In fact, the source you have provided a link to (not a Pakistani source as you claim, but one that actually dates to the time of the British Raj), at the time of its publication, i.e. the nineteenth century (which underlines that not only is the source of your definition limited and prejudiced, but it is also archaic), patently states in the words of its author, S.S. Thorburn, that the Awans who were classed as Hamsaya by the Bannuchis, as:
“Being better labourers, and more thrifty, they gradually acquired land and increased in numbers, which, naturally enough, has prevented them from being popular amongst the Bannuchis, or rather Pathan Bannuchis, as Hindkais are now, to all intents and purposes, Bannuchis themselves, having been settled from two to five or more generations in the valley. Their old masters are fond of ascribing to them all those vices which we know they themselves possess.” http://www.khyber.org/pashtolanguage/pashtoproverbs/classlocal-a.shtml
In other words, if you read that statement I have italicised, even during the nineteenth century, Thorburn comments that the connotations carried by the term Hamsaya during this period of time, were outdated and thus the term, a misnomer, given the change in status experienced by this section of the Awan tribe (Thorburn stating that this section of society should be referred to as Bannuchis and not Hamsaya/Hindkai). Furthermore, Thorburn clearly indicates that the derisory term is based on racist notions, more proof that the term is inaccurate (and note the use of the phrase “old masters” even during that period of time). Also note that Thorburn also makes the point that the Bannuchi Pathans are in no position to vilify others.
In fact, looking at the link to the source you have provided, Thorburn states in his introduction:
“Hindkais are roundly abused… because of their superior thrift and energy in cultivation… as far as I have observed, the Hindkais are most unjustly vilified. Probably motives of jealousy alone have warped the judgement of their former Pathan masters about them. http://www.khyber.org/pashtolanguage/pashtoproverbs/classlocal-a.shtml
Even the author of the source you have cited has stated that the manner in which the Pathans addressed those residing in their areas who were of non-Pathan origin (i.e. Punjabi migrants) was unjustified and that the prejudiced Pathan attitudes were the result of jealousy. Moreover, Thorburn has quite clearly stated that by the nineteenth century, when the source you have referred to was compiled, the groups that are the topic of discussion were no longer subordinate to Pathans (hence his reference to former Pathan masters), further proof that your article is irrelevant because hamsaya as defined by your article, is invalid, warped and unreliable.
Your article does not even acknowledge the present day status of the groups that Pathans referred to in such derogatory terms, nor does it make reference to the fact that the term is rooted in bias and that its use cannot be justified; if you had done so, you would have been forced to realise just how outdated the term hamsaya, as defined by your article, is. I gave three specific examples relating to the Awans, including one taken from an official Pakistani government source. To recap:
“Sayeds and Swatis, and to some extent Awans, are influential landowners; others are either tenants or tenants-cum-landowners.” http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4856E/y4856e0g.htm
The above quote relates to Kaghan (NWFP), where Awans don’t even form a significant proportion of the population, yet a clear distinction is made between them and dependant groups.
“In Punjab and NWFP, the Kammis were dominated by other castes such as the Awans and the Kharals.” http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/ppa-national.pdf
The above is from a recent Pakistani government source – note it refers to the position of the Awan tribe in the NWFP as well as Punjab.
Even during the nineteenth century, the majority of Awans still managed to maintain a standing that often led them to being virtually indistinguishable from the larger Pathan community, a situation that continues to this day, hence the quote I reproduced:
“Next to the Pathans are the Awans. They are an agricultural tribe like the Pathans and have many characteristics in common with them.” http://www.opf.org.pk/almanac/P/provinces.htm
And as I stressed earlier, what really makes a mockery of the term hamsaya, as defined by your article and applied to tribes such as the Awans who either resided within the NWFP or neighboured (something that your article alludes to) the Frontier Pathans, is that in regions of the Punjab such as the districts of Attock (where Fatehjang is located) and Mianwali (where Kalabagh is located) that border the NWFP, Awans maintained and continue to maintain a dominant position despite the heavy presence of Pathans within these regions and across the border in NWFP. Again, to recap:
“Fatehjang and Kalabagh, which border the NWFP, are the residencies of Malik Mohammad Asad Khan (the current Nawab of Kalabagh) and Prince Malik Ata Mohammad Khan (hereditary lord and master of Fatehjang and one of Pakistan's most powerful feudal lords) and both men are of course, Awans. It should also be noted that both dynasties have retained their pre-eminent status in regions that are heavily populated by Pathans.”
I am sorry, but the above facts, make a mockery of the term hamsaya when used as a term to describe Awans living on the border of the NWFP as being subordinate to any group (as your article suggests), let alone Pathans. As I said earlier, you have created your article by taking comments relating to the use of the word hamsaya amongst nineteenth century Pathan society, out of context.
And contrary to your claim, the article cannot be “suitably amended and developed to accommodate a broader scope.” Firstly, Wikipedia is not a foreign language dictionary, and the word hamsaya, in reality, is nothing more than a Hindi-Urdu term with a variety of mundane, everyday meanings. Secondly, your definition of the term, as has been described, relies on a single, narrow definition of the term that is also happens to be racist and more importantly, erroneous and thus does not deserve inclusion in any article outlining definitions of the term, especially as the term itself, as defined by your article, is now obsolete and null and void, i.e. it does not reflect present day realties – in fact, even the author of the source you referred to states that the use of the term as a derisory reference to “Hindkais” was outdated in the nineteenth century. Lastly, when even the author of the source you provided a link to comments that the use of the word Hamasya as defined by your article, is unjustified, misleading, based on jealously and prejudice and outdated (even at that time it did not reflect the reality of the situation), then not only is your article irrelevant and misleading, but it also most certainly deserves to be deleted.
To reiterate, the article is inaccurate, anachronistic, skewered, and offensive to Awans because of the false impression it creates and thus serves no purpose at all. Malik Awan 1 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was This is still being openly debated on DRV. Please let that debate run. If we have two debates and potentially two different results all we will have is madness. If DRV overturns the deletion, then if anyone still wants it deleted they can come here. This is not a place to come for undeletions. -Docg 22:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tanya Kach was a kidnapping victim and now the article has been deleted in the recent spate of BLP paranoia (see Talk:Michael_J._Devlin#Bad_move for a response to a particularly stupid application recently). The incredibly tenuous interpretation of WP:NOT-Newspaper is definitely vague enough to not warrant a speedy. I'm absolutely not a fan of how Wikipedia carries News events, favouring subtrivial worthless nothings such as Essjay and Joshua Gardner just because they appeal to the techidiots. I've held this view for a long time, here's an edit I made around 15 months ago berating Wikipedia's current events.
Yet this case is way more notable and covered in the mainstream press, generating more relevant hits in Google News than either Essjay trivia and Joshua Gardner rubbish. Her case involves various reported twists an turns, her name is widely known in the public sphere. Although the best place for an article on this case may not be in the form of a biography, a biography could make a very efficient catalogue of all the information. Wikipedia is for the reader first, it is an encyclopedia first. There is a chance that readers will come looking for encyclopedic information on this case, we can provide that, and this event being notable, we should provide that.
You can take a look at a snapshot of the speedied article at the Google cache, you may feel it isn't notable, you may feel it is, it could definitely have done with improvement. But what it isn't is an insta-delete with zero but one's input. When I joined Wikipedia and started voting at RFA, Adminship was no big deal, I just don't trust admins to delete anything they want under the new WP:NOT-Newspaper directive without community input. Restore the article, move it if you want, list at AFD if needs be, but speedy it ain't. - hahnchen 11:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aniother one in a long line to keep.--Lucy-marie 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Adam Cuerden talk 13:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned article that does not deserve an article of its own. Easily can be incorporated into article on ACC or other related article and then deleted. Postcard Cathy 13:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
prod removed; doesn't seem worthy of a stand alone article. Postcard Cathy 13:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
prod removed without article being improved in any significant way. Edit summary says there are many google hits for this guy but one should not have to go outside wiki to determine wiki worthiness. Article should show wiki worthiness and this article does not and editor(s) don't seem willing to improve it to the point that it does. Postcard Cathy 13:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Adam Cuerden talk 14:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result of last AfD was "keep, stubify, cleanup to remove "advert-ishness", and reference.". Total number of references added since then: zero. Cleanup tagged since January; total substantive changes since January: none. One spelling fix, two meta-maintenance. Seems that as long as we carry their directory entry, nobody cares enough to actually provide any evidence of verifiable content, or references from which we can establish neutrality and assure ourselves that the article does not contain original research. The originator and main editor has not edited since December 2006. It is hard to escape the conclusion that nobody actually cares about this subject. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was User:Krimpet/Image macroUser:Krimpet/Image macro textUser:Krimpet/Image macro image Krimpet (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatent advertising, could be put through under speedy GC11, but unsure so will leave to admin Willow177 13:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userfied to User:Paulasamson. Self-evident autobiography. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subject - no google hits support the notability of this article. There has been no response to a request for references. This article appears to an autobiography, which violates WP:COI. Evb-wiki 13:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
prod'd once already; went to prod again when I noticed. This article says absolutely nothing useful. There is more info on the football team on the HS page then there is here. Notability has been tagged already. This page is redundant. Postcard Cathy 12:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a promotional article with no encyclopedic value. The subject is not notable - he's just an "inspirational speaker" and a garden designer. It was previously speedied for non-notability but reinstated so the author could improve it - the evidence of notability is thin to non-existent but there is now an assertion, so no longer speediable. andy 10:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unverified, fails WP:BIO. Prod removed without comment who IP dropped by to add a cross-reference to her brother. Deiz talk 10:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by proposer, verifiability problems solved. Thanks and respect to all involved. --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been around for nearly a year without any significant improvement. It's an orphan and until I stuck a proposed deletion tag on it had no references. The references it has now appear to be a website that offers up this story as a means of inspiring simpletons with blind faith, and another site that deals in tales of levitation, witchcraft, fortune telling and the like. Nothing reliable there. If a single reliable source cannot be found for this, we're better off without it. --Tony Sidaway 11:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete under WP:CRYSTAL Adam Cuerden talk 13:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability and no independent references (WP:N, WP:V) and has been tagged with such concerns since December. Prod at that time was removed with the belief that an external wiki and a directory listing was enough to show it's notability. Marasmusine 11:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Adam Cuerden talk 12:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:CORP, non notable, created by username that suggests COI a year ago and little modified since. Orderinchaos 11:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G7 - nominator is both subject and author of the page. Orderinchaos 11:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jgorauskas 09:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Literally a dictionary definition from a non-free dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't see this contested prod going anywhere. MER-C 07:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was REDIRECT to LiveJournal#Account suspension controversy. The clear consensus is that there should be no article here. So I'm going to redirect this. There is near on a deletion consensus, but I see no presssing need providing it stays redirected. There's less of a consensus about where to redirect, so I'm content if discussion on the talk page results in a better target. If the redirect is undone, then the article should be deleted.-Docg 08:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page fails notability guidelines web 1 and 3. Also fails a BLP check by maliciously labelling the group using a biased groups' definition of them. Article is related to recentivist activity at LiveJournal. Only sources used on the entry are from livejournal blog posts, and the only reference to them in a non-livejournal based link is a passing mention in a single news story on news.com related to the suspension of potentially pedophilic blogs on Livejournal.com. Non-notable website. Kyaa the Catlord 07:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than this one incident on LiveJournal, where only a small fraction of accounts were even affected, WFI seems to be a pretty small-time organization/blog no more worthy of being included in wikipedia as an individual article than any other small-time blog. Shall we start making individual articles for each of the affected journals and communities now?
Support the AfD request. Any relevant information can be included in the subsection on the LiveJournal article. Possibly recreate the article should they become notable. 206.255.127.192 00:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Can't sleep... Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate collection of data Corvus cornix 06:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The very impressive-looking resume of an artist.
The article was created by the SPA "Ishukuro" on 1 January. I noticed it and flagged it with LIKERESUME and UNREFERENCED the next day. User:KRBN prodded it on 23 April, with the somewhat ambiguous comment "Very bad style and not notable person without reference". Five days later User:Terriersfan removed the prod with the comment "Badly needs cleanup but enough here to assert notability". Not having noticed this earlier prod (Sorry!), I reprodded it on 15 May with the comment "three months have gone by, and there are still no references". Later that same day, User:DGG removed the prod with the comment "I see refs at the bottom".
So let's examine the refs. They are:
And that's all.
The first of these is presumably a list of the artist's book reviews for the Leonardo journal. It's likely to say little or nothing beyond this. (I don't know, because it has timed out every time I've tried it.)
The other isn't an independent source.
The artist has two books listed, complete with ISBNs. I'm willing to believe that these exist. I could cut the article down to to "Lia Lapithi Shukuroglou is an artist who has had two books published", and then list the books, but that would be an odd article indeed. Or I could spend hours googling around for disinterested info on this artist. But if Ishukuro can't be bothered, neither can I.
So I recommend deleting the article, without in any way prejudicing the fate of a later, entirely different article about the same person. -- Hoary 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned article about a non-notable poet. Vanity page, if you like that angle. Gump Stump 05:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 07:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is one of several created by the same author that is un-sourced, un-encyclopedic, and wildly ignores the Manual of Style. Zero articles link to it, and the article's category is also up for deletion. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. Sr13 08:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion tag removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion. This is an author with one novel, printed through PublishAmerica, which, despite its fervent denials, appears to be a vanity press. He and the novel each have about 190 Google hits; of the ones I looked at, none appeared to be valid reliable sources to help him meet biography guidelines. The page has one link to a local newspaper story. Creator of this page is User:Amerdale, so I suspect a WP:COI is involved as well, and this is probably a promotional attempt - also note that links to this series of articles have been added to a lot of other articles. I'm also bundling in his book and the main character of his book into this discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages, as noted above:[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is one of several created by the same author that is un-sourced, un-encyclopedic, and wildly ignores the Manual of Style. Zero articles link to it, and the article has no categories. Kralizec! (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 08:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is non-notable. There are thousands of minor-league baseball players. This one does not stand out above the others. Fbdave 05:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, even if Scrubs references it. -- Merope 05:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article makes no assertion of notabilty and offers for WP:RS. JodyB talk 04:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no point. It is simply here to poke fun at the Bengals. That makes this article content not suitable for an encyclopedia and thus not suitable for Wikipedia. Cincydude55 04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Just so you know the "Bengal" in Cincinnati Bengals refers to a bengal tiger.--Cincydude55 19:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 08:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails WP:MUSIC and fails to assert any notability. No WP:RS to establish notability JodyB talk 04:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. For one thing, I'm getting a disconnenct between a lot of the comments and the actual article; the comments address an earlier, much different version of the article which dealt with mythology and so forth. That part is now gone. It's well and good that articles are improved under the threat of extinction ("Knowing that one will be deleted in the morning", to paraphrase Mark Twain, "concentrates the mind wonderfully"). It is hard to achieve a consensus on a moving target, though. I'm not complaining; it's good for articles to be improved, and this one has. It now has references, for one thing.
There were a lot of commentors. I quick count gives me 15-9 in favor of Delete, which is kind of a supermajority. Hmmmm. Supermajority or no, I don't see a clear consensus on this version of the article. No prejudice against an immediate renomination, where we can discuss this more stable version; this would probably be preferable to going to deletion review, if anyone is unhappy with the close. Herostratus 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete I dimly remember being altogether surprised at this article when I was new on Wikipedia. I'm a conservative Christian, always have been, and it's still something altogether new to me. Look at the end: if I believe Eden to have been at Al-Qurna, why would I include Yemen but not Azerbaijan? It has to be OR. Nyttend 04:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fails WP:BIO – no secondary sources. KrakatoaKatie 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Subject has published a small handful of articles in some journals of low to middling prestige, but the same could be said of most tenured college professors. Douglas has received zero coverage in secondary sources. Note: a related article is being debated for deletion a little further down the page. Ford MF 04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a big church, but it doesn't deserve its own article. The article gives no indication of its having any significance outside of its own affairs. If this were a denomination of this size, it would be otherwise, but independent churches have to be judged somewhat differently, or every single independent church would be sufficiently notable. Nyttend 04:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 08:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page appears to be spam. There are no reliable sources from multiple non-trivial sources which would demonstrate notability. JodyB talk 04:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nomination was not intended to result in deletion. Discussions about what to do with the significant number of stubby Ancient Roman personnages might be a topic for a Wikiproject? Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 19:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this not so much I think it should be deleted, but as a way to encourage people to think about an issue this article is only a first example of: articles where there is little hope, as current knowledge stands, that it will ever grow much beyond this brief account.
I won't make any argument about verifiability -- the The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire not only is a reliable source, it is an excellent source. If it states Tertullus existed, then he existed. However, I think the existence of this article does introduce -- but in a new way -- the old, much discredited concept of notability. In the final analysis, this is an orphan article, & probably will never be linked to; all this person truly is known for is a single inscription erected to him in southern Italy, which records some fragments of his life. Are we all comfortable with the creation of thousands of brief articles like this, destined to float forever in that twilight world of stubs, ignored by all except a vandal & whoever happens to discover this vandalism? Or should we draw a line here, & encourage people who write articles like this one to instead merge the content into the relevant article -- unless it can be shown that there is good reason to havea separate article about this person? I'm looking for a discussion here, not a chorus of "I agree, keep/delete". -- llywrch 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hasan Kamrul have graduated from Jahangirnagar University in 2007 and secured first class third position in his M.S program on Sedimentalogy & Basin Analysis. After graduation he was joined as a geologist (Operations) in an Australian Company for mineral operations in Bangladesh for commercial views on development. Basically he is a columnist. His write up has been published in national dailies in each month. He writes on Energy & Power sector and other geology related topics like environment, earthquake, sea level rises and its effect etc. He is very innovative person on literature and his first book will publish in this Ekushey Book fair. Several poems and literatic topics has been published in the national dailies on Literature page. He is also a critic person of the politics and literature.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft. This is better suited to a Power Rangers fansite/wiki than to a general encyclopedia. Vassyana 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be completely original research (who's to say what is a mistake and what is meant?) and is not very encyclopedic. Metros 03:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was was speedy delete Renfrew's Jews as an attack page or at the very least offensive junk. As for Renfrew Museum, I've redirected it to Renfrew, Ontario since it might be used as a search term and I've added it to my watchlist. Pascal.Tesson 05:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe the original creation of this page, as a one-liner by Jethero, to have been in good faith (probably), it still failed WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY. "Renfrew Museum" and "Ontario" yield only 89 unique ghits, most all of them passing mention at best. I say "probably" because the image used to illustrate the article (uploaded by someone else) somehow doesn't even mention that house is a museum? It asserts only that it's a photograph of the "Bonnechere River in Renfrew, Ontario, Canada", which makes me think maybe that's not even an image of the museum. So I think it's worthy of deletion under those criteria already. Additionally, since its creation the article has been beset by a number of editors, both registered and anon, adding patently ridiculous, hoaxy, uncited material, namely the SPA Renfrewash and TheCheat13, whose only edits outside this article have all been vandalism. Mostly the editors have been asserting, without any citation, that the house was built after WWII as the headquarters of the Nazi party in Canada. I suppose crazier things have happened, but this assertion is supported by exactly zero hits on Google, and thus smells like hoax, and one that, via TheCheat13, is spreading. Ford MF 03:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#IINFO. A new phase of indiscriminate information. Masaruemoto 02:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable effects animator. Has worked for Disney, but so have thousands of other non-notable animators. Article was created by User:Colbertf (the subject). Was prodded for lack of notability two weeks ago but Colbertf removed the prod. Masaruemoto 02:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was recently forked off the main Starcraft II article, after the creating editor had content removed per a prior discussion on the talk page. This article is, apparently, supposed to be some kind of list of units and structures in Starcraft II - however, since the game is not out yet, they are only "confirmed" units, so far. However, this is something Wikpedia is not - namely a guide to an unreleased game. Article was previously prodded, but the notice was removed without comment by an anonymous user. Haemo 02:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding any reason to believe that this band is notable; quick google search doesn't turn up any third-party sources. Veinor (talk to me) 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No indication as to why this is significant or worthy of an article; no sources, no nothing. Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 17:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. None of the sources talk about the actual topic of a curse. JLaTondre 02:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as original research. What curse? Ford MF 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Conditional keep as well, based on the new refs. If the editor integrates the sources listed below and cleans and trims the article, I think it will be sufficient. Ford MF 03:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is all this? I created this because of you so please don't turn it around and be rude, thank you!--Migospia †♥ 03:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC) You guys say one thing and then do something else, not nice! =/--Migospia †♥ 04:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please I do not like being treated the way you treat me so please just learn to deal and play nice, did I ever said I owned the article no? And how was the article not created in good faith? Because it was, how dare you assume what is good faith or not, to me a lot of people like this couple and I after seeing other soap couple pages on here I thought this would be perfect for Todd and Evangeline, I did work hard on the article and you make it seem like I am the only one in the world that wants this article and etc which is not true, I would never make a page just for me or not to be a good reference source or encyclopedic article for other peoples viewing that is not what wikipeida is to me so please don't accuse me of this you don't have to try and start fights and hurt peoples feelings all the time you know you can try, I mean come on at least TRY to be polite, assume good faith, be welcoming, not to personally attack, show etiquette, don't be a dick, but also importantly please show WikiLove! and but I really do not have to explain myself to you because you are VERY rude and mean and I do not want to have to talk to people that talk to me the way you do
And yes of course this was a copy and paste job but with editing for the Tangeline article I did it because WikiTweak stated that in the Tangeline article and so reading with the deletion process, I changed the name-“Tangeline” is a fan base tagging; - So with reading the deletion steps and that being at the time the only reason I thought what I did was good and out of good faith. But please when you go to deletion debates and delete articles or wherever try, at least try not to keep insulting them and belittling them, focus on the deletion article and facts surrounding. but its over its going to be deleted so please stop trying to accuse me and none things --Migospia †♥ 05:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A redirect can be created if people really think it's useful. W.marsh 17:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable comic strip that ran in the school newspaper of Murray State University. Was previously nominated for deletion over a year ago, where the result was no consensus, although the only "keep" argument then was that "all factual information needs to be represented" (?!). Tagged for lack of sources over a year ago; still none added, so time for deletion. Masaruemoto 01:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yamaka122 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC) It should be integrated into the publications section of the Murray State University page and then the page should be deleted.[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely OR -- no basis for any of the claims made in the article--it is entirely an obscure neologism, not a real area of scientific study Nicktalk 01:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. The songs have nothing in common beyond happening to have been played on an episode of a TV show. As with similar lists for shows including The US and UK versions of The Office, Skins, and others, this should be deleted. Otto4711 01:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bold text KEEP: This list was useful and it hurt nobody by being there. Why not put it back?
The result was a clear consensus to merge, so please be bold and do so. This is not a binding result, nor does it require an AFD nomination. — CharlotteWebb 02:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two articles about this character
The Joker is one of the most popular Batman villains, but there are two articles about this character: one refered to the comic incarnation, and the another one is about the Joker depicted in Batman.
The result was Keep Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 18:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Russian politician, member of the state Duma, it says, and founder of a school or horsemanship. Only trouble is, it's unsourced. Also a near orphan (Tambov Gang links to it). We're short of articles on the Russian Federation, certainly, but what's the use of this? I suggest that this article either be properly sourced, and stubbed down to what is sourced, or else deleted. --Tony Sidaway 01:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 15:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very unorganized should be replaced by a category list. Each "airport circulator" system has its own article already, therefore the tables and details on this page are unnecessary. –Dream out loud 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a club or group that does not assert significance. Additionally, not written with citations or in an encyclopedic manner. HeartiesYo 00:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snow Delete. Peacent 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm as big a fan of Pirates of the Caribbean as anyone, but this article is the very definition of fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, no matter how nifty that information is to us fans. The timing of this article's creation is also rather curious, as I truly doubt this information would be considered noteworthy in its own right if the movie trilogy were not particularly popular right now due to the recent release of PotC3. --Icarus (Hi!) 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a previous round of AFDs tended to establish that WWTBAM contestants are not notable for having won a million dollars unless they are the first of a particular series to do so. Additionally, the obsessive level of detail of his appearance brings this very close to if not over the line of point seven of WP:NOT#IINFO. Otto4711 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Flood's win was significant in the Australian series' history. Channel 9 slur campaign makes Flood's win notable. The sequence of questions is of interest in the context of quiz shows with major prizes. Point seven of WP:NOT#IINFO refers to works of fiction and is irrelevant. Grimhim 01:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about the questions that he answered can go. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was I went ahead and boldly Redirected to List of minor characters of Scrubs, so there's no real reason to keep the discussion open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A minor character on Scrubs. Her mention in List of minor characters of Scrubs pretty much covers all we know about the subject. Gpollock 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Adam Cuerden talk 22:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like either a original analysis essay or a novel synthesis. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 15:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A rather uncritical piece by an an on with no other contributions - in other words, almost certainly an autobiography. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus and improvement. Peacent 16:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A playground song is - wait for it, this is a real revelation - a song sung in the playground. Add a bit of original research ad personal opinion, and hey presto! an article. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not establish notability of subject, beyond two movies that he wrote. No references or sources, no biographical information beyond year of death and how he died. Ozgod 04:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Merge still possible as an editorial decision, of course. W.marsh 17:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a campus radio station. I can't find any evidence of non-trivial coverage of it outside its own university. Suggest merge to the university, or transwiki to the student union website. Virtually all of this is generic, indistinguishable from any other campus radio station. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Superscript text
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reposted article about an "anti-folk" band, by a single-purpose account. Now, folk bands are pretty close to invisible on the Interwebs and don't get a whole lot of attention in the music press either. Apparently there are 22 listeners to this on last.fm. Sounds like vanispamcruftisement to me. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability of pub, despite having been tagged and the author notified. Looks like a nice enough place, but not especially notable. (Author disagrees here, I have asked him to contribute to this discussion). Fourohfour 13:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An international auxilary language that does not meet the notability guideline. All references in the article are self-published. Although the article attempts to assert notability by noting the author of the language was the editor of a journal, the journal is almost completely ignored by academics (3 ghits on the title among edu sites). [46]
The best reference to either the journal or the language that I could come up with is from the journal Language Problems & Language Planning, Volume 27, Number 2, 2003, pp. 155-192. Three lines in a 38-page paper describing scholarly resources in interlinguistics say:
This reference is not enough to pass WP:N. Delete Aagtbdfoua 14:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]From the newsletter published in 1991 on the project for a planned language called Vorlin by Richard Harrison (Orlando, USA), the Journal of Planned Languages was born. From 1992 to 1996 some 24 issues appeared.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced since June of 2006. Also marked as an orphan since October. I think it is an odd-ball term that should probably be a redirect to some other page, but I don't know exactly which one. BirgitteSB 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: This was a talk page moved into article space. I have moved it back where it belongs and redirected "Children's Authors" to Children's literature. Punkmorten 17:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't appear to be an article at all. I'm running through AfD rather than other processes because of the template that claims there has been an AfD. Erechtheus 16:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus - Keep. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there isn't a nerd in Argentina who has not heard of this, and there is a handy link if you want to buy it. What there is not, is a reliable independent source. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on other things at the moment, but I've found a neutral source (in Spanish) that backs up some of the statements in the article. When I get a chance, I'll revise it (if no one else has). I'm sure all the above responders understand this, as you also had things to do instead of improving the article yourselves.
By the way, the article says Lúpin "is 'looping' spelled in Spanish", not translated into Spanish. —JerryFriedman 02:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Srikeit 09:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews is that way. Tis is a news story masquerading as a biography, with the clear intent of promoting a racist political party's agenda. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep this is a murder article in the same league as Stepher Laurence. It is just the other way round so the aricle is as important as the Stephen Laurence article which nobody whould ever delete, also I think trhat the current binge of lets delete murder articles when it is cliamed they are news stories or biographies is counter-producteve as wiki is not paper and there is no limit to the number of articles and all fullfil the notability criteria as they have multiple secondary sources.--Lucy-marie 18:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'comment the main reason it should be in on here is becausxe it was ignored.--Lucy-marie 10:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please expand You say this is the "coatrack" could you please elaborate on your reasoning.--Lucy-marie 09:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been deleted twice as advertising and here it is again in all its completely unreferenced fannish glory, replete with original research and not a single independent source to show notability (on the plus side, loads of fair use images and plenty of GameGuides stuff - OK not so much a plus as a minus) Guy (Help!) 20:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was that the article should be kept and improved. Mallanox 13:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is a non-notable internet radio station which has received several minor press mentions. In my view, it violates WP:CORP. The main author of the article is involved in a rival internet radio project, SixHits Digital Radio, which makes it slightly questionable under WP:COI. There is no reason for the article to stay; none of the events described are particularly notable. Digital Spy Poster 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion removed. You're the only one against this, i believe you to be involved with Hitz Radio UK. Provide evidence IfYouCanSoCanI 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about the completely unsubstantiated allegations of legal behaviour? PPL and MCPS-PRS have confirmed in e-mails to me that HitzRadioUK does not carry any form of legal licensing. Furthermore, investigations of his servers have found that they carry a potential maximum of 120 concurrent listeners. Furthermore, a simple Alexa search has proven that his site and station do not have anywhere near the website hits he claimed.
RE: BLPC - NPOV is surely satisfied. References to specific names that are not part of the references in primary and secondary sources have been removed. Specific date of birth removed to protect privacy. Several words have been changed over edits, example "clearly not true" deleted, false to unlikely, did not have to uncertainty, a different name to slightly different, copied from to suspected to be similar to, suggestions over something rather than clearly blaming. Besides the changes to words and sentences, many sentences have been totally deleted to protect privacy and delete rumour and unverifiable and uncited sources. The main person in question is named as it is in the various primary, secondary and tertiary sources cited. Other names have been removed, so has the primary persons date of birth. I contest that the latter edits, on the whole, satisfy NPOV, BPLC and NOR. All are referenced and cited. Some are from tertiary sources in regard to the primary subject's internet forum postings. However at least 2 of these are also corroborated by a statement on camera in the STV news report, which is a verifiable PRIMARY source. As for the point about forum sources. Some of the forum sources as mentioned above have been corroborated on camera. So therefore they validate the forum posts by Mr Dunlop. As these forum posts are validated in that fashion, they also provide proof of copyright infringements by association in the same forum posts. I'm referring here to Sky News and having an Ofcom license stipulating taking the news from them. As for other copyright infringements, I have copied "The King" show webpage prior to the photo images being taken down. These images and other names are specifically talked about in the ELE website. If anyone can suggest a web host in which to display and link to as cited proof, then I can do that. Anybody that would still like to contest any information here, please go ahead and suggest changes that would make it, in your opinion, adhere to any policies. Remember that anything, either adding in evidence or contrary to it, should be cited and referenced by primary or secondary sources preferably, as already seen in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.107.123 (talk • contribs) — 81.97.107.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It is outside the scope of BLPC when all else is satisfied, that the reliable sources of information give the reader a somewhat automatic assumption to form a bias. That is not any editors fault, if what remains cannot be deleted. It is only the already present well cited and reliable primary or secondary sources that lead the reader to form any bias. I agree that further edits should be closely monitored, especially if further primary or secondary sources present themselves.81.97.107.123 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Nominating for deletion on grounds that the article seems to be a hoax. It's not a case of notability concerns; the artist does not generate any Google hits, barring the Wikipedia article. There are no websites that mention him. He isn't mentioned in any blogs. His records are not available for sale on any website and his works do not feature on any playlists. I should also note that the edits that removed the prod tag also changed the references, after I had questioned the validity of one on the talk page. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This is a standard murder, we have a lot of them. Nothing special about this one, even if it occurred in England, where crimes like this are lower in numbers. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A murder case. Sad. The murderer is one of four hundred untariffed prisoners, so even that is nothing unusual. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article desereves to bekept as It made national news and not all murders make thae national news so it was a notable event. The nature of the murder make the event notabele and the article is in the process of being expanded. I say allow the article to be expanded and the re-evalutate at a later date after expansion and the clouser of the AfD to allow for the expansion to take place.
Keep Does meet noptability, this is not a biography it is a murder article and there is no memorialising in the article. The article should also stay as wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and the is no limit to the number of articles so this article should stay as there are no real grounds for deletion.--Lucy-marie 18:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Note that this user has already contributed to this debate above.[reply]
*Closer - please not socks and duplicate !votes.--Docg 08:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is my understanding that suspected "sock puppets" are to be entered here: [Suspected sock puppets]. This discussion does not appear to be the appropriate venue. Drew30319 20:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as no non-trivial, independent sources. Adam Cuerden talk 22:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sparsely-referenced article about an internet radio station whose notability cannot be verified (WP:CORP). Two of the station's presenters, Kevin Coy and Michael (Meic) Young are the main authors of the article. No external press references for SixHits can be easily located. Digital Spy Poster 20:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*deletesuper strong delete NN as it currently stands, the sources presented are awful - I would be willing to reconsider if better sources are presented. --Fredrick day 22:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong wrong wrong - those still just prove that the station exists, that's it - we all accept the station exists, we don't accept it's notable. Listings do not provide notablity - they provide evidence that something exists and do you really think you are the first person to try and use MediaUK? the first NN radio station to roll up at wikipedia? no and no. I think I will have to change to strong delete - the fact that people connected to the station can only provide weak and poor sources says it all really. --Fredrick day 21:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of florid praise, but - amazingly - no sources. That is really unusual for an article on a band, isn't it? Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 21:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one [52], another [53], here's a nice one that covers the whole band [54] etc. etc. etc. 'Nuff said? Hamster Sandwich 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This is a memorial about 5 soldiers of a brigade in the Iraq war. There is no assertion of the notability of either the brigade or the soldiers. The editor who removed the prod thought that since the soldiers died in combat, they are notable. I don't think this is automatic. -- lucasbfr talk 23:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]