The result was already deleted by NawlinWiki on 6 March 2007 —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not exist because a better one is already in place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft_%28film%29
The warcraft lore described in this article is not very well written, was incorrect in places, and is well documented on other parts of wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft_Universe
We do not know anything about the film yet and this article is speculation on the film storyline and basically describes the world of warcraft game. This should be deleted due to the fact theres a lot of speculation and none of it has to do with the topic of the movie. 151.196.38.97 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Mhiji 23:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Nominating the article Jon_Walton to be deleted.[reply]
Inappropriate + useless content
Beelake 14:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to The Sims. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:13Z
I don't really see any value in this list that say a category wouldn't on these individuals pages. Please read WP:ILIKEIT before making comments on this. The way EA is cross-marketing this product to try and get as many celebrities as possible involved in it it could very easily become massive and unmanageable if it was to be completed.Crossmr 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:23Z
appears to be a non-notable biography. Speedy deletion tag was removed twice. My vote is a very weak delete. Mostly listing because of the repeatedly removed tag, with no attempt to add any references or content that would prove notability. Improbcat 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(moved comment below from top of page to correct location)Improbcat 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless clearly refed by reliable sources. He may be a splendid fellow, but he can't have an article in Wikipedia without enough reliable sources being referenced. NBeale 23:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:24Z
Autobiography. No great asserion of notability. -- RHaworth 01:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion by admin CesarB as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 04:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biography with no assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 01:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:24Z
Only one reliable source, no indication of notability per WP:MUSIC, and only 6 ghits, none of which provide any additional indication of notability. — Swpb talk contribs 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:15Z
After two years this article still fails WP:BLP policies. There are no secondary sources confirming notability except www.islamfortoday.com. Google only has 827 hits to her name [1]. This article seems to exist for only one reason, and that is to make the list of muslim converts longer. Sefringle 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article does meet the guidelines for notability per WP:LOCAL Nv8200p talk 02:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. wL<speak·check> 07:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An enormous mess of a trivia article, filled with unsourced original research in declaring as fact that such things as Marty's saying "Mom, is that you?" in each of the films was a deliberate "running gag" or "theme" and that this sort of thing contributed to the popularity of the film series. Otto4711 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. This band seems to be on the line between notable and not notable, with some saying it qualifies under WP:BAND, while others saying it fails WP:MUSIC. If this band doesn't improve, maybe another AFD might change matters. wL<speak·check> 07:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reason non notable band article does not state why they are imptent enough to be on here Oo7565 03:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Obvious joke nomination; non-admin closing using WP:SNOW.--TBCΦtalk? 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally fails WP:Notable. Little known leader outside Canada. Does not require article.
User:Superkiooo 3:36 UTC AM
The result was Redirect to Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:16Z
Despite being a "cooperative house" this reads like it was written as a frat house prank. I acknowledge this might be salvageable as a basic article by removing everything beyond the first three paragraphs. Yet I'm putting it up for deletion because I waver on the importance of the location itself. But no references at all in the article. Given the tone and content, this suggests it's written by members of the house. Officially, I'm pegging it with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:ORG. PigmanTalk to me 03:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:17Z
Notable? Neutralitytalk 04:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:17Z
Not notable. Neutralitytalk 04:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Geometry Template. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:30Z
Contested prod. No appearance of notability as a commerical product (are there multiple, independent published sources discussing it?). I think it warrants discussion no matter whether it is kept or deleted. CMummert · talk 04:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, maybe I'm getting old, but I went to school in Brisbane, and I've never heard of this "Mathomat" gizmo before. To my mind, a non-notable commercial product. Lankiveil 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep, changing my vote, as obviously my school was unusual in not having these gizmos. Perhaps it's a private/government school thing. Lankiveil 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:27Z
Original Research Alex Bakharev 04:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:28Z
Article solely on advertising, all created by one person who mentions himself in the article, contact info at bottom DiamondDragon contact 04:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:30Z
This project does not appear noteworthy. A Google search yields only 8 hits. Furthermore, the article is copied verbatim from its website. Over half of the article are biographies of its two creators. Even if the artwork were somehow found to be notable, and even if there were a significant secondary source of about the sculpture, the article would have to be scrapped completely because of the copy vio, not to mention the style and content issues. Tbjablin 06:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:36Z
I think this is a hoax, but for once, it wasn't played on Wikipedia but rather the the source that was used in good faith by the article creator. Other than the obituary which is referenced and provides the material used for the article, I can't verify the claims, which if true should be easy to verify. I note that while IMDB has an entry for a Johnny Mann (I) and a Johnny Mann (III) there is no Johnny Mann (II) which leads me to suspect that they were hit by the hoax but later discovered it, deleting that entry. The only innocent explanation I can think of is that he was credited under a different screen name, but if that's the case, we really need that name for this article to be of any use. Caerwine Caer’s whines 06:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion, but I don't think the article's subject is completely non-notable. Having said that I am unsure about the subject's long-term impact. Procedural nomination, no vote from me. – riana_dzasta 06:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:44Z
Clearly does not assert notability, and is defiantly not in the tone expected of an encyclopedia. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Neuroimaging. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:46Z
This one is a bit interesting. On one hand it does not neatly fit into one of our speedy deletion categories, but on the other hand I have concerns over how it is written, and the possiblilty for this to become a WP:OR problem. In either case I just happened along this while clearing Category:Stubs. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was ((wi)). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:49Z
We are not a dictionary. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carabinieri 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
This was marked for speedy deletion, but it is well-written and has plenty of assertion of notability. I think the real question is, are there reliable sources for this guy? There might be, there might not be. But I'd rather let the community decide what happens to this article. No opinion. Grandmasterka 07:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Band has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. which is the core notability requirement. I don't see any citation that the band had a hit on a national music chart. Article had previously been proposed for deletion in Aug 2006. I'm not sure if the undocumented claim that is in regular rotation on a retro internet-only radio station meets the requirement for notability but would be interested in what others have to say. Warfieldian 17:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 12:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod of small-town brewery. No indication of notability per WP:CORP. --Elonka 06:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete The Pitchfork Media reference is damned by the conflict of interest brought up by Nuttah68; without it, the entire article fails. Veinor (talk to me) 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:MUSIC; no album yet, the record label doesn't seem notable, and there isn't external coverage. (Lots of Google hits but they're mostly about the actual bird. Crystallina 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether this passes notability for products. Montchav 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable. --Hojimachongtalkcon 04:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A website of no objectively provable significance, subject of a lame edit war about the rules placed on its forums, entirely sourced fomr the site itself, sole external mention is a passing mention in a list of related subjects in an article on military subjects on the internet. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to University of the East. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:52Z
Prod contested with no reason given. This ia a spam article for a non notable university faculty. Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a substitute prospectus. Nuttah68 10:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:53Z
The article is an autobiography, and at least some claims are overstated. The author describes himself as having won the Pulitzer Prize, but this was in fact awarded jointly to staff of the Orange County Register. See also Gerald W. Smith. JQ 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Hinterlands (short story). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:54Z
does not merit its own article, all content is already on the stub-like Hinterlands (short story) page Skomorokh 11:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic, no references or citations, unnecessary fluff Anthony Hit me up... 11:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:55Z
No case made for notability Billlion 11:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:55Z
No notability is claimed in the article, although possibly he might meet WP:BIO criteria this is not claimed in this stub article Billlion 11:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Dave Douglas (drummer). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 13:57Z
Per Wikipedia:Notability. Auroranorth 12:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to History of Liverpool F.C.. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 14:01Z
Only serves to duplicate information found on the Liverpool F.C., History of Liverpool F.C. and 2005 UEFA Champions League Final pages. Robotforaday 12:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 14:02Z
I don't think this website meets the criteria for notability and generally seems like just a subversive attempt at an advertisement Arch NME 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted. Nothing to see here, move along folks. Hesperian 12:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted under WP:N. Auroranorth 12:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Blood Stain Child. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 14:03Z
Is this drummer notable? WP:N Auroranorth 12:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
list of external links -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 13:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The 'keep' !voters didn't present really convincing arguments compared to the deleters. Veinor (talk to me) 03:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was Delete. Fram 13:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not pass notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia. Burghboy80 13:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTE Snarfies 13:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dalejenkins has deleted and redirected this article twice as non-notable; however, in its last nomination there was no consensus. I created this article, and last time it was I who nominated it for deletion. However, since then I have changed my mind and I believe that the article should be kept. I am only adding this article here because an anon editor tried to add it for deletion but did not do it properly, and also so that we can try to reach a consensus on whether the article should be kept, in light of Dalejenkins concerns. TomPhil 14:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, obvious WP:NFT failure. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism Nv8200p talk 14:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by Majorly. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:31Z
Only ghits for Kevin D. Rolle is a comedy/comic strip writer; unverifiable, non-notable. --Walor 14:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:31Z
This is a user page that user switched to main encyclopedia - it's vain person who believes he's important, but is not notable to the world in general. The key, though, is that if he truly is important enough to have an article in the encyclopedia, he needs to wait and let someone else write it, rather than writing about himself. As a result of writing his own autobiographical entry, this page is full of unverifiable information. 129humility 15:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Leonovich is not world famous does not make him any less noted. He has had works performed in Carnegie hall, and completed Tchaikovsky's Cello Concerto. 129humility needs to stop his or her personal quest to delete Mr. Leonovich's biography on Wikipedia. Instead of trying to improve Wikipedia by looking real problems, he or she is making persistant hits on a solitary individual that he or she might or might not know personally. I am well aware of Wikipedia rules of vanity and promotion. I am here to state the facts. As you can see, there is a legitimate reference on the Yuriy Leonovich page: www.tchaikovsky-research.org. This page is mainained by Brett Langston and Alexander Poznansky, authors of the Tchaikovsky Handbook, and other well known biographies on Tchaikovsky's life. The authors are used as references on different pages on Wikipedia. I am not here to explain my means of obtaining information. However, I'd like to see the end of attacks on this article.
Sergei Lysenko 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Maestroukr Sergei Lysenko 17:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.kontinent.org/article_rus_44ef8d4888e0a.html . (this article is in Russian, from a Russian-American paper: Kontinent). However, the article is no less valuable in a differnt language. http://www.tchaikovsky-research.org/en/Works/th249.html is by a noted Tchaikovsky biographer Brett Langston, who gives credit to Mr. Leonovich for completing Tchaikovsky's unfinished concerto.
Sergei Lysenko 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Sergei Lysenko 13:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I request opinions on this article, which since its creation has been a magnet for edit-warring (with WP:3RR and other problems) [6] and of a lot of uncivility and disputes on the talkpage.
About one half to two thirds of this article can already be found in the Out of India Theory and in the Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) articles. The remaining part of the article could be safely merged as a section into the OIT, AIT and Hindu nationalism articles. Most of it can easily find place in OIT, and the rest in the other two articles.
Here we have an article that claims to be about the "ideological position" that may manifest itself as "Out of India Theory", and that seems to have been created to paint views such as the "criticism of Aryan migration theories" as some sort of Hindu nazism. The article has also neutrality issues.
It does not need a separate article. Wikipedia has articles on theories like Armenian hypothesis, Paleolithic Continuity Theory and many other theories, but Wikipedia has not articles only on the psychological motives or ""ideological position" for these theories. Such claims belong in the article of the theory, not in a separate article.
I suggest that this article be merged as a section into the mentioned articles, or that at least a suitable title for this article is found. Such a title could be Ideological positions in the Indo-Aryan migration debate or maybe Out of India Theory (Ideological positions). --RF 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC) RF 01:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The result was speedily deleted by RHaworth. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear or insufficient evidence of notability. Contested prod. Strangerer (Talk) 17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep
Contested WP:PROD, sending here for discussion. Original PROD rationale is here. Procedural nom, no opinion. Chick Bowen 17:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical article with a big conflict of interest problem. Sources are primarily by the subject/primary editor of the article. Prod was contested (by the subject of the article}. RJASE1 Talk 18:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I confess to accessing this page while looking for a list of casio calculators, WP:NOT a collection of links, or a directory. The page is almost useless, at least 95% of the links are redlinks, and few of the articles would ever contain any useful information without becoming instruction manuals, which WP:NOT. Most of the lists are in neither numerical or chronological order, and there is no consistency of style or content. It's unknown and difficult to determine whether the lists are current or comprehensive, as there are no references or cited sources. All in all, this list needs an enormous amount of work itself, and the effort needed to establish the hundreds of articles it links to is simply titanic. Without all those redlinks linking to functional articles, the list is useless, and even if the faries were to accomplish that, and remain within the confines of WP:NOT, what would we be have then? A glorified category which can't update itself. Useless. Happy-melon 18:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:29Z
Seems relatively non-notable (WP:N), and self-promotional (WP:Vanity). Rebroad 18:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete: fails WP:MUSIC, non notable. Also a copyvio of the band's homepage, so speedy delete as well. Fram 13:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article does not meet any of the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:32Z
Not notable
The result was Deleted. No assertion of notability, self-referential tone, conflict of interest (from both editors), borderline spam - overall, it has to go. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy deletion... whatever this is, it needs to cite some published sources and explain its importance or it should be deleted. Article may be a conflict of interest autobiography. --W.marsh 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete: unsourced, unverifiable. Fram 13:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable phenomenon, consisting entirely of WP:OR, with serious WP:V issues. I've found nothing with a quick perusal on google: [13] and [14] Part Deux 19:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable forum and fansite. Was kept at the previous AfD without many !voters, but I don't feel it meets notability guidelines. The mention in Gamesmaster magazine is trivial coverage per WP:WEB, and states "Our favourite is www.caws.ws, which has CAWs so realistic they look like they've been photographed - and, um, some slightly less realistic ones. Check these out..." with a few pictures of images. The article fails WP:ATT as the entire article is written from the primary source, there is no non-trivial coverage in secondary sources from which an encyclopedic article can be created. One Night In Hackney303 19:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:27Z
The article does not assert that the subject meets any criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted, copyvio. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism and original research. --LambiamTalk 19:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:27Z
There is no assertion of notability for the subject that meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:23Z
Contested prod. Upcoming festival with no real assertion of notability, no independent sources. 31 unique Ghits, and couldn't find any reliable sources among them. One Night In Hackney303 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:34Z
Reads like a resume, no sources cited, deleted once as CSD A7. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A constructed language. No evidence of notability, seems to be part of a walled garden of articles relating to Mark Hucko, some of which are already deleted, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-level cosmology. Article is completely unsourced, presumably original research. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete this article, reconsider if a full article is written. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:22Z
Band with only one album and very few informations about it. -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tihs article was deleted once as an autobiography, created by User:Johnbeal. It was re-created by a new user, User:Bsteph1, who started editing after Johnbeal stopped. I believe they are one and the same. The article is pretty much completely unsourced. IMDB [22] shows Beal to be a jobbing composer of music for minor productions - "specializing in composition for theatrical marketing", i.e. writing advertising soundtracks. Check also the links to reeltime music, this person;s company. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete blatant hoax = vandalism ~ trialsanderrors 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supposedly a hurricane that hit Tahiti aka Otaheite. No references: only reference is to page that doesn't exist. No google hits: searched for Neddia & hurricane. Possible WP:HOAX. Prod removed by only author. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dictionary definition. I hear tell of "transwiki" to Wictionary but I don't knwo how that works, but if this is not there already it probably should be. Otto4711 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as admitted hoax. gadfium 22:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax. The following discussion about it appeared on the NZ Wikipedians' notice board:
For these reasons I suggest deletion. Grutness...wha? 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been much debate amooung my peers at Otago as to the legitamacy of the scrutiny and investigation of wikipedia articles. This "hoax" was the created (by me and a collegue) for the purpous of the investigation of the reliability and to find out how much time it would take for wikipedian articles to be identified as hoaxes. Congradulations. it has taken a fortenight.Tu Pounamu IV is simply non existant. "Jade Gray" was a randomly selected student from the old school yearbook. Aquinas College was randomly selected as his "school". (mainly because I board in a bording house that shares the name).The picture was scanned from out of the local news paper and the image was picked because the character was the darkest most maori looking in it. (hence the blurr). so dont get your heckles up, atleast you managed to prove the reliability of wikipedia and change the minds of some of your harshest critics. GerradPier 08:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:20Z
Delete - thre do not appear to be independent sources to establish notability. Should he actually appear in that "SAG film" the article hints at, in a substantial role, then perhaps he'll pass but for now he should go. Otto4711 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:19Z
Consists by definition of fan speculation. Indiscriminate jumble of dates and contradictory "evidence." Compare to a similar, now-deleted article for The West Wing. Andrew Levine 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. No delete vote. PeaceNT 08:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded on grounds of non-notable, no google hits, article fails WP:COI, WP:V and WP:SPAM all links on site are back to Mr. Erdman's own webpage. Richhoncho 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:17Z
All of the information in this article (except for it being a Kate flashback) is unofficial and has not been confirmed by the producers or stars of Lost or ABC. It is based upon rumour from Spoilerfix.com. SergeantBolt (t,c) 23:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because [absolutely none of the information purported in the articles is official - none of it has been confirmed. Also, the title for episode sixteen, The Truth About Lying, was revealed by Carlton Cuse in a televised interview, yet the page One of Us (Lost), has been created even though The Truth About Lying was created days before.]:
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:21Z
I prodded this, prod removed on the grounds I did not notify the instigator of article. Reasons for listing include WP:COI, WP:SPAM , WP:NN and WP:CITE (not that I could find any independent sources, but somebody else might). Richhoncho 23:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as copyvio (CSD G12). -- Merope 08:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nom - Fails WP:N. Falls clearly under WP:NOT. Speedied once already. Rklawton 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:21Z
non-notable article Guroadrunner 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:17Z
not a notable person and I can't find anything that says he was a philospher, anywhere outside of his own site. This bio has, though not currently, been a page full of debate. If you google this guy, you will note that only two places show up, his site and wikipedia. I went to the profile months ago to cool down the hostile debates and even after later posting on the Philosophy Wikproject, nothing[24]. I see no reason to keep an article that can't attract non-follower comments or even any reliable or verifiable sources. Addionally, most of the language was changed by me to remove the obvious POV, and I will not be offended to see it go. Additionally, I found that others agree here [25] --Maniwar (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]