The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly original research, no out-of-universe notability. ShadowHalo 17:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN with the main contrib being only a likely WP:COI/WP:AUTO violation by Srstorey (talk · contribs). There are some incoming links, but they all seem to refer to an old boxer, the wrong person. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. WjBscribe 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficiently notable in my view. Casper Gutman 22:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: I just don't believe it will be possible to develop JCR committee posts into encyclopaedic articles. There isn't an article about the Univ. JCR itself, for goodness' sake!
Casper Gutman 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not assert notability per the guidelines in WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 23:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to University of the Aegean article. No notability outside of being affiliated with the university. Cúchullain t/c 04:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, does not meet WP:WEB. Leuko 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to have some more info please, if you like, for the fact that this article-page has been noted for "speedy-deletion". There is a small talk on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yannisap referring on the article. Please inform me more for any policy changes that may have changed, since the creation of the original page, which is on Wikipedia for some time. This is about a non-profit student effort that is supported and integrated with University of the Aegean, Greece. Please contact me for more info! Yannisap 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This google search shows that he has 18 ghits. While the lead might seem impressive to the uninitiated, reading "a Rebbe at the Marsha Stern Talmudical Academy" what this means is "a teacher at a high school. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Shimeru 07:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted, established, or sourced per WP:MUSIC. Declined speedy. RJASE1 Talk 18:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John Reaves (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has had notability and orphan tags sitting on it for a month now. Delete unless it's proven that this neighborhood health clinic is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. szyslak (t, c) 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The three online links were trivial with the only one with UKR as the main subject being a two line blog entry. One (potential) non-trivial source doesn't suffice. --Wafulz 05:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a UK based video game blog. A previous article was deleted a year ago via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Resistance. A new article was written, and speedily deleted for failing WP:WEB. Speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review. This is a technical nomination, I have no opinion. GRBerry 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Initially prodded for deletion as a non-notable club, the original concern was:If there is a cite for actually being the first [organised personal computer user group in the world], then it should be kept. An additional reference was added here and the prod tag removed; however, I believe it is a primary source that really doesn't satisfy the original prod concern. A quick search yielded no secondary sources to support the claims of notability in the article. UnfriendlyFire 00:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Tampa, Florida. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable middle school, no assertion of notability, very little content. DoorsAjar 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Húsönd 01:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Typical nonnotable band. I'd prod it, but it's been edited a lot so I feel that's not quite fair. YechielMan 01:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish settlement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Simply a POV Fork of Cyprus dispute. The title of the article might be original research, the content contains two paragraphs about the property disputes in the Cyprus dispute, however not clear how they qualify under "Turkish settlement". Delete, and merge (if possible) any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute. Baristarim 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the article wants to discuss the composition of North Cyprus in terms of mainland Turks and their integration into Cyprus then that should be done under Demographics of Cyprus. That imo is the most npov way of doing it. --A.Garnet 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Article contains unsourced and poorly sourced claims. Article lacks notability. Masterpedia 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are a non-notable label without even their own website. The first hit on Google is discogs.com (which contains an entry for everything), and the second is Wikipedia. They don't seem to have signed any notable artists or groups; there is no reason for their inclusion. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Ianblair23 (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about an insignificant secretary for an unimportant Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs. Masterpedia 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Shimeru 07:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be an advert for a non-notable company. I've not speedied just in case there's a good reason to keep it, but at present there's nothing to suggest notability Iridescenti 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a small company, with very few employees making a minor software product for a narrow customer base. If listed at least 10000 other small danish companies should listed as well.
The result was merge, but someone with more knowledge about the subject, i.e. participants here, will have to do it. John Reaves (talk)
As much as I am an X-Men fan, this article is necessarily of too little notibility even to fans of the X-books to merit a full Wikipedia article. Outside of her being the (debatable) first victim of the Mutant Massacre in Uncanny X-Men # 210, there is nothing else that would support a full article, as that issue and a handful of appearances on the animated series comprise the entire corpus of her existence in the Marvel Universe. Pat Payne 17:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as CSD A7. - Mgm|(talk) 11:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable high-school (American) football team. Not even clear that the content is verifiable. Pascal.Tesson 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
Suriel1981 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Wafulz 05:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable christian rock band. a couple of indie records, but no singles, article notes that band "broke up after struggling to gain mainstream popularity" indicating it fails WP:BAND. Also is completely unsourced, so violates WP:A ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:31, 23 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 Keep. Notability concern addressed. Shimeru 07:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted because it is a non-notable vanity (and COI) article. Lewis wrote this article about himself, and has exaggerated his awards and accomplishments. The Day prize is the only one he won outright (and it was for a collaborative work); the Broken Frontier is a web community-based award with no official standing, and Cinescape chooses multiple winners, hence "a winner" (their usage - Lewis skips that bit). The first hit for Lewis on Google is his own company, and there is no way to verify easily that he was ever more than a student contributor to the IJOCA. He's also not an "educator" but, given his current education level (self-stated PhD student), perhaps a teaching assistant. The sources on the article are his company site and his blog, and thus fail WP:RS. MSJapan 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List with many problems: It includes any film that has won a "widely-recognized" award (including a Razzie). "Widely-recognized" is inherently subjective. I know about films but I haven't heard of some of these awards. Annual box office receipts also appear to be a factor here.
WP:NOR states that unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material... (including) interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication. So unless these films have specifically been listed in this order, for this reason, by a reliable publication before, the list is OR.
Also problems with the title; "notable" just doesn't work in Wikipedia articles because, by definition, every science fiction film with an article is notable. I have proposed a rename (renaming it to anything else descriptive), but that was before I actually looked at the list properly and realised it shouldn't even be on here. Saikokira 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. WjBscribe 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reads as a howto (see WP:NOT#IINFO); misspelt page title; incomprehensible EdC 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((expert-subject|Mathematics))
. I reserve the option to relist Auxiliary Fractions for deletion if it is not significantly improved within a reasonable time period. –EdC 16:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement, not notable. Prod contested on two separate occasions in the past. Sable232 02:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nom looks like self-sourced SPAM to me; This company hardly registers with Google - and it claims to sell computer hardware. Fails WP:CORP methinks. Rklawton 02:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not assert notability of the subject. Nv8200p talk 02:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as spam. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nom - speedied once; fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB Rklawton 02:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, amateur Sunday League team. NawlinWiki 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm astonished this page has lasted nearly a year! Anyway, fails WP:CORP as it appears to simply be a Sunday league team HornetMike 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly notable pioneer, article sources lost during page moves.
Partly procedural: At first glance, the subject of this article would seem important as an early pioneer of the European settlement of the area. However, the sources for this page were lost along with the early page history during some rather unclear page moves. The article obviously cannot stay without them, and I myself have no information on the subject. I ask some admin who knows how to retrieve the sources, so the article can be properly restored and discussed. . -- or perhaps the orig. ed who added the article still has the information. We have been discussing similar bios, & it would be a good time to clear the status of this one if possible. I cannot say which way it should go without knowing the sources. If restoring them is for some reason impossible, then of course it should be deleted. DGG 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. It was a procedural nomination, and the consensus to keep is unanimous. Non-admin closure.
An anonymous user tagged this article for speedy deletion, leaving the following note:
The result was speedy delete G4. Daniel Bryant 07:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still fails WP:NFT, WP:NEO. Due to the nature of the game, it is unlikely that it will ever be verifiable. Only new information appears to be a link to some Flash game. mikm 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perim Özgeldi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete, per notability criteria of WP:BIO - the article says "Turkish press advisor who is working for one of the best comedian Mehmet Ali Erbil in Turkey." Not sure if press secretaries qualify as notable, even though the comedian might be. Gets 138 hits on Google, nearly all from Wikipedia mirrors like answers.com [13]. Baristarim 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's a college student with a radio show and a blog. Big deal YechielMan 03:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw him discussed on an ESPN radio program by Bill Simmons who was talking about some of the better Sports bloggers on the internet. Rooks19
With new media and its recent advances and the growth of blogging, who is to say who is a legitimate source and who isn't? PerezHilton, Deadspin and countless others are on Wikipedia. Just because you don't follow NASCAR and haven't heard of his blog does not mean it should be deleted. He has a growing viewership because of his southern roots and knowledge of the sport. Keep Piggy on Wikipedia! AlSorr06 — AlSorr06 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supposed three time world lightweight champion at the age of 16. Suspected hoax Mattinbgn/ talk 03:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Sources do not validate claims. Philippe 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently trying to write an entry for every first class cricketer who has played for Yorkshire CCC. By definition a first class cricketer is a notable person. The entry will be expanded and properly presented soon but I can't do everything at once. The sources for the statistics, Cricket Archive, will be given. Nick mallory 00:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory[reply]
The article has references to Wood's statistics on cricinfo and cricket archive and is linked to the Yorkshire Cricketers category. I agree the title is clumsy, but that was the link from the 'Yorkshire CCC players' page which I'm working my way through. If someone could change the title that would be great but I wouldn't presume to do that myself. This article is as complete and well sourced as a thousand others on similar first class cricketers and I'm not sure why it's still up for possible deletion. Nick mallory 02:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory[reply]
The result was speedy delete by Geogre. →Bobby← 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subject; sources do not validate the claims. Philippe 03:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's nip this in the bud. This page (even with a new title) appears to be waiting for something problomatic or a flamewar. It is impossible to compare the two without either having this be a op-ed or a direct fork of an article. Yanksox 03:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity/promotion page about an educator whose importance is still pretty unclear after reading the article. This page was previously deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Heppell for the first debate. The entirety of sourcing available at this time consists of a couple of short bullet points in a "profile" on a news site [14]. There is also this, brought up in the previous debate as an award he won that (1) isn't an independent source, (2) reads like a press release, and (3) doesn't give any idea what the RTS Judges award is, or if it has any prestige, who awards it, et cetera. Given the shabby state of the article, the creation of it and some recent editing by User:Stephenheppell, and the borderline level of notability here, I say we delete. Mangojuicetalk 03:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Chappelle's Show. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely uncited quote-farm about a single skit on Chappelle's Show. Sub-minor fiction character which even fails notability on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) since it does not have sufficient depth to sustain an independent article. At most it should redirect to the show or actor article. Anything remotely notable could easily be covered by the Paul Mooney or Chappelle's Show articles. Recently prodded but deprodded with no assertion of notability. Recommend delete, then redirect to either Paul Mooney or Chappelle's Show. Dual Freq 04:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claims that they are known all over "the Los Angeles county" (sic) and have designed shirts for celebrities are unsourced. Google search turns up nothing beyond a myspace.com page. Db tag has been removed numerous times by creator. Fails WP:CORP janejellyroll 04:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE, unfortunately. The article's a mess. All of the Keep votes noted that the article needs major work, generally pruning. There were some comments suggesting a split (of the potheads) or a merge, but not significant support for those solutions. I will now proceed to prune the article with a vengeance, as everyone agrees that that is a condition of it being kept. No prejudice against a renomination if the article doesn't soon figure out what it wants to be and moves in that direction. Herostratus 03:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list was nominated once before as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of iconic smokers. At the time, the article lookedlike this.
The final keep vote acknowledged the need for substantial cleanup. The top of the article begs for references on the hundreds of claims made below. On the talk page, the following comment sums up my impression of the situation:
== This article is a total disaster. == This article has got to the point where any celebrity who has been photographed smoking is included. "Tony Yayo"? I really have no idea who he is, he certainly doesn't belong in this "iconic" article alongside Bette Davis and George Burns. This article needs MAJOR pruning. PatrickJ83 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's throw this article in the ashtray. And while were at it, let's throw in
YechielMan 04:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per nomination. Harryboyles 06:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list of links to websites of user groups for various Unix-like operating systems. In blatant violation of the policy that Wikipedia is not an Internet directory. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable comic. Doesn't pass basic tests like existence of reliable third-party coverage (oddly, the sole thing I could find was this recommendation by an islamic website). The official website claims [15] that the comic will soon be available to a wide group of retailers, which suggests that it currently has little or no distribution. Pascal.Tesson 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi i don't know how to use html please fix up my mistakes- the Prophcey comics have a website which would be a great reference rather than the Islamic website it is http://www.prophecy.com.au/index.htm. sorry for the inconvenience Daqiq (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Daqiq[reply]
The result was keep with suggested cleanup. Arkyan • (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not making the Olympics confer notability? Her team finished 16th in the European trails... where's the cutoff? 20th? 50th? Irish triple jump champion yes. But triple jump is a darned obscure event, Ireland is a small country, and one editor noted "Multiple Irish triple jump champion but never jumped within 2-3 metres of standard in other countries". I'm sure she's buff and all, but where's the limit here? Herostratus 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She is also not well known- I have just googled her again and 26 references came up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.149.105 (talk • contribs) — 213.202.149.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of program syndication. A show does not accrue notability based on who broadcast it and a station doesn't accrue notability based on running a show in syndication. Otto4711 05:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Shimeru 07:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been through a lot of Cryptid pages. this one contains absolutely no sources or external links whatsoever. It does not beg any notoriety at all. The 1998 sighting has no source at all.
Nominate. Non-notable local myth. ZayZayEM 05:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like the recently deleted Australian musicians list this list is too broad in scope to every be complete (WP:LIST); there are no inclusion criteria, a look over the list shows that it includes, physical, biological and social scientists,; as well as people that aren't really scientists - like engineers and architects; this could run into thousands of people. There are good categories for all types of Australia scientists; delete. --Peta 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this discussion; this list is even more untenable given that it covers the entire area of North America rather than a single country. Delete --Peta 06:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge back in to Krusty Gets Kancelled. Arkyan • (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fictional cartoon within another fictional cartoon, the subject consumed approximately two minutes of screentime in one episode and was never mentioned again. The subject in no way passes notability guidelines. On the extremely off chance that someone might use the title as a search string, redirect to the episode in which it appeared, Otto4711 06:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, subject isn't notable and the only sources provided are trivial message boards and fan sites (e.g. geocities). John Reaves (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod was removed, so I had to take this to AFD. Non-notable indy wrestler. A google search turned up no decent results. RobJ1981 06:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--New Era Wrestling from last night in Mount Healthy, OH: Dave Nevada b Coz Jackman, Cyrus Poe & Tommy Chill b Team Awesome, Garf Redman b Nikita Allanov, Chris Reno b Nick LeBeau, Ronnie Longworth b Wrestler X, Brad Callway NC Tim Lutz. Next show is 9/2
I'm not sure what kind of sources you expect for an independent wrestler, however I've already stated my reasons for adding those specific sources. I have also established that NEW is a notable promotion (one of its champions being Shane Douglas), second that he has face at least one notable opponent Nikita Allanov (whose notability I have established despite its nomination for deletion) and third that he has held championship titles in NEW and at least two other independent promotions (Intense Wrestling Incorporated being a feature story on Everybody's News as well as Al Snow and New Jack having previously competed in the promotion). Also the "geocites website" is an archive page of Allanov's official website NikitaAllanov.vze.com. The messageboard, a current and longrunning messageboard which specifically coveres in the Mid-West independent scene, shows Nevada is known in at least to wrestling fans in the area. Not the best of sources, but it does support that he is notable beyond the World Wrestling Coalition. MadMax 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Reaves (talk • contribs) 06:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The result was delete. Far stronger arguments favoured the deletion of this article. Articles based on a series of news reports about a single incident or short series of incidents are far from encyclopedic content, though they are well covered at Wikinews. This does not strike me as an incident of WP:DENY or WP:COI, simply an example of a non-notable business. It exists and was in the news for a bit but as argued below, that does not make the company notable. There may be room for a discussion of the effect of people being paid to edit articles at Criticisms of Wikipedia but not for detailed coverage of a single such business. There is an urge to create articles when an incident receives a large amount of press attention but I think the important distinction between an encyclopedia and a newspaper needs to be born in mind- lets leave the reporting to Wikinews. WjBscribe 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by first afd, second was no consensus. I speedied it as G4 yesterday, my bad, I didn't notice the second AfD. Sources: an article about paid editing of Wikipedia, which has a bit about Gregory Kohs (article deleted and endorsed), slightly less about MyWikiBiz, and some about Microsoft. Second source: a press release. Not independent. Third and fourth sources: the Wikipedia Signpost, completely inappropriate self-reference. Kohs is not notable, by consensus, he is, however, banned. Quite why his one-man company which is never known to have traded more than a tiny amount, would be considered notable, is beyond me. Navel gazing, I guess. List it in project space in a long term abuse page, I suppose, but the company itself, if it still exists as a separate entity (debatable) is not in any way notable other than internally. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article features a boy and his band, neither of which are at all referenced, and neither of which seem at all notable enough for Wikipedia - see WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO BlackberryLaw 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable webcomic group full of non-notable webcomics. No sources provided to confer notability. —Ocatecir Talk 07:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Tingle. Nert Nert Nert. --Objection! 09:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.22.127 (talk • contribs)
The result was Speedied as A7. Sarah 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable accident victim whose only claim to fame was dying in a ferry accident on Sydney Harbour; and see WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which this is rapidly becoming. Within a couple of weeks she will be completely forgotten. While I feel for the family involved, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site or memorial page site, and the incident is already well covered in the Sydney Ferries article and that is enough. I have already merged a separate article created about the accident. Delete JRG 09:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please just stop this discussion - someone get rid of the article, and we should all move along... really. Petesmiles 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted. Spam CSD G11. kingboyk 12:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to violate WP:SPAM and WP:NOTE at least. Non-notable product by non-notable company. Also propose deleting the following two articles for the same reasons:
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A directory entry for a mall. No actual evidence of notability, references provided appear to be either directories, trivial, or not independent (e.g. press releases). Guy (Help!) 11:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Bucketsofg 01:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The first two AfD nominations of this article were straw man nominations made by sockpuppets of now-banned editors.
Delete Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Contains large amounts of OR. Jtrainor 23:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. I find the SYNT/OR arguments compelling because of the wide variety of contexts in which "apartheid" is used within this article. While some of the sections feature well-sourced material, there is no evidence of any sources implying any connection or equivalency between many of the various sections. Setting up this equivalency is therefore novel synthesis. Shimeru 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Contains quite a bit of OR. In addition, much of the article's content is duplicated elsewhere. Jtrainor 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, either we end this nonsense and merge all of these articles into neutrally titled pages that cover these issues in an encyclopedic manner, or we keep all of them them. At present I vote for unilateral disarmament, and call for editors to get back to creating good articles of the kind one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Here are the related articles/forks. If I have left any out, then please notify.
The result was Keep. Cúchullain t/c 05:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason provided by the user when it the AfD template was edited in by the user with an IP of 67.100.16.114 was Notability. Again, please note that I did not put the AfD up, I merely replaced the template with ((afdx)) because the user had used ((afd)). Remy Suen 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uh, why delete it exactly? its a popular mmo and lots of us have put alot of effort into making the article. its just the idiots who dont read the rules that stuff it up.
The result was Speedy delete author request. James086Talk | Email 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this article for deletion citing as it violates guidelines listed on WP:NOT and WP:OR in that "Mae" is not a notable fan fiction character--Kevin586 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Shimeru 07:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article completely unreferenced, requests for citations meet a point-blank and rude refusal, citation tags repeatedly removed by another editor RolandR 23:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I don't see a consensus to move, if you feel I've misread it let me know. I think a separate discussion on moving would yield clearer results. John Reaves (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Completely OR. Jtrainor 18:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“ | One has to ask whether there was transparency in the invasion of Iraq. The world knows President Bush lied openly about Iraq having chemical weapons, They keep on bombing cities, killing children, they have become a terrorist state.--Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, 2005. | ” |
(Restoring my post which was deleted by Jakerforever)*Keep: I'm unsure where the nom's concerns are founded. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A CHALLENGE: A call to put your effort where your mouths are A significant number of the "Keep" proponents here say they don't want to delete the article because the subject deserves mention in the encyclopedia, but they say they think cleaning it of unreliable material is necessary. Despite the best intentions voiced in this discussion, the fact is, it's the FIFTH discussion on deleting this article and after the past four, the article is a mendacious mess and a perversion of Wikipedia principles. In the past (and currently in the case of List of people who went to heaven alive) I and other editors have achieved consensus in keeping articles by working on them to make them better. In the case of this article, doing so would probably involve facing down a number of editors who have made the article what it is today.
So here's a challenge. All of you who said the article should be changed, both among the "Keep" group and the "Delete" group, will you join me, for the seven days following the close of this discussion (if the conclusion is "Keep", and that's the way it looks like it's going for the fifth time) in doing the following:
I'll help out by doing some research, questioning some parts of the article and suggesting rewrites and additions to other parts. Obviously, anybody else who wants to should be working on the article as well. I won't be voicing my disgust in any discussions on the talk page and I'll work toward consensus and a neutral article. If I can do that, can any of you pledge to help, or are your opinions about keeping this malformed article (even if you don't mean them that way), simply supporting a biased article?
A list of those who said, essentially, "Keep" but reform the article in some way (and I'm asking for every other contributor to this discussion to make the same pledge):
If five of these nine editors (and I'll be adding more to the list as others join the discussion and make the same point) will tell me they'll help to improve it and will participate in helping to form a consensus if there's a dispute, then I'll change my vote to "Keep" and help work on the article for a week after the discussion is closed. If, after attempting to improve the article, it is again overrun within months by egregious non-NPOV and bad-sourcing edits and yet again becomes a mess, I'll be nominating it for deletion discussion Number 6 and contacting each and every optimist on the list above to solicit support for removal. And we'd all have a convincing argument for removal at that point. Is this proposal fair? Is it not in the best traditions of Wikipedia? Is it not an attempt to come to consensus after five deletion nominations? Is it, on its face at least, not a good-faith effort to do the right thing? Noroton 04:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The New York Times in July published a long interview with Luis Posada Carriles, a Cuban-born, CIA-trained terrorist who had been convicted of bombing a Cuban airliner off Barbados in 1976 and had served nine years in a Venezuelan prison. In the interview he admitted to more recent attacks against Cuban property, claiming to have organized the 1997 bombings in Havana hotels and to have had his activities financed by the late Jorge Mas Canosa and other leaders of the Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF). The Interior Ministry announced that three Guatemalans and two Salvadoreans were to be put on trial for their part in the bombings. Described as mercenaries, they admitted to working under the direction of Carriles and Arnaldo Monzón Plasencia, also of CANF." (Encyclopedia Britannica)
*Keep: As per Wooyi, The article is well referenced, the fact presented may be not proven, the title only says "Allegations", and not state terrorism by /of/in America. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗPeace Talks 09:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable - has not played for either of his football league clubs and is now with Conference South side (have updated article to reflect this) WikiGull 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a POV fork of cesarean section, anging the drum on behalf of the natural birth people (who are probably right about a lot of it, by the way, but that's immaterial). It contains some speculation, and if pruned will be not significantly bigger than the section already in cesarean section (under Elective). Some of the text here is generic to cesarean sections anyway (infant mortality rates, for example). Might need merging or smerging back, but probably redundant. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a link repository. kingboyk 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per this clear indication that someone is using Wikipedia as a soapbox - or perhaps a snake oil box would be closer to the mark. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it says "little research has been conducted on erinacines to date". Most of it, apparently, by the author of this article, who has no other contributions. Some references, to be sure, but Google comes up close to blank and I don't see enough critical secondary review of this. Maybe it just needs aggressive cleanup, I don't know. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a neologism, no reliable sources to show notability or to allow verifiability. Prod removed without explanation or improvement of article Gwernol 13:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as non-notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subject. Vanity article. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userfy and delete. Moving to User:Adam63/Adam Jones (political scientist). Cúchullain t/c 05:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entire article is WP:COI and WP:AUTO violation by Adam63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If the subject passed WP:NN the entire thing needs a rewrite anyway. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by Mailer diablo (CSD G11). →Bobby← 19:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the nominated articles are, essentially, a walled garden of non-notable vanispamcruftisement created by Fdmt (talk · contribs). Recommend a quantum deletion. MER-C 13:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arkyan • (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned page for a year now. Nothing in the text to indicate why this group is notable in any way, and nothing to indicate what this group actually did other than that they foreclosed on some mortgages over a three year period. The name makes it pretty much impossible to search for any material from which to expand the article. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As March and Iridescenti observed, there should be more. Our reluctance to use non on-line sources is incompatible with producing a general encyclopedia. WP: the encyclopedia of the world since 1990. DGG 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the cleanup I'd say this is now worth keeping. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. IrishGuy talk 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a travel guide
May I just say that I have only included pure tram stops, and not stops such as West Bromwich Central tram stop and Wednesbury Great Western Street tram stop (please see their respective talk pages which have previously been train stations (if indeed they have). Tram stops are not not notable than bus stops, and precident has been set with Nottingham Express Transit losing it's individual stop articles (the main article now looks very neat though) and Supertram and Metrolink have no individual stop articles - and Manchester's Metrolink stops are more like Midland Metro's, so in my opinion, neither need individual articles. They are unexpandable, offer no information, and conflict with Wikipedia is not a travel guide.
So, there are my reasons, argue away! L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 14:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Awesomeness is not a criteria for keeping an article; WP:V is non negotiable.Cúchullain t/c 06:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up while getting sloshed in the pub one night. An earlier version of the article[26] detailed the origins of the game in a small town pub. Weregerbil 13:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, does not assert notability. NawlinWiki 15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tags for lack of references, lack of notability, and wikification needed were removed; upon Googling, this name gets no other results at all, so I'm pretty sure it's 100% badly-written fiction. Propaniac 13:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
prod removed without improvement or explanation. No references. Fails WP:CORP. ccwaters 13:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already redirected. Arkyan • (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Belongs in wiktionary, not in encyclopedia. Madhava 1947 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, despite the best efforts of JzG to get it deleted. John Reaves (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied once as a mix of non-notable and attack, still no evidence of notability. The band's website is on a free web host, and that is the sole source. This is a directory entry in a directory of Eurovision entrants. Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this user has put deletion tags on many articles and gotten critisim for that. And tha tthe band has been in Eurovision Song Contest 2001 singing for Macedonia is notability enough.Just because its short doesnt mean its not notable. The song they sanged in eurovision even have its own page, then why should the band who singed it its own page?.--Matrix17 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Their song have even its on page 100% Te Ljubam 303 and JxG it just seem strange that the band singing the song should have one. am i not right?--Matrix17 14:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This discussion should be closed due to that JxG didnt even take the time to do the nomination properly.--Matrix17 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First of all i have added a article from the world leading news site on eurovision about the gorup. and second none of yourr cliams make any sense. The group has sources , they ahve been in eurovision, they already have a page about their own song in the contest. So whats the problem.--Matrix17 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: offcourse the song should be inserted in the Band article. not the opposit it doesnt make any sense, if you want t read about a group you dont search for a song you search on the group name.--Matrix17 11:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: hahaha you are really funny mackan, you say a bunch of people? Name and reference to atleast 2 other people then? and i havent canvassed that person she has an own mind my suggestion desnt make her opinion final. Dont do bad talk about other people.what you doing is just silly nonsense--Matrix17 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. WP:V is not negotiable. No problem with recreation if reliable 3rd party sources are found.Cúchullain t/c 06:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some bands enter Eurovision, win, and are ABBA. Some enter, lose, and split up and are never heard of again. Guess which this is? Guy (Help!) 14:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep i think this is like the 20th article i have seen that have been nominated by the same person in bad faith. Just keep it.Its notable. And as usuall it isnt a proper nomination from the nominator.And hes reason for nomination isnt a good one either.--Matrix17 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: bad faith delete add from Hackney. He has done this on numerous pages. just to annoy people.--Matrix17 15:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes and as usuall you do your best to provoke. Maybe you should try to read the pages. and the discussions and then make your opinion.You just dont have an open mind. If someone nominated an article for deletion just because YOU had done it you would be so happy either.And that i actually provide articles for this wiki just slips you by constantly.always just picking on the bad things. And that the nominator havent done the nomination properly you dont complain about either. strange, or not! I stand be KEEP--Matrix17 15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have now added a link to europes largest Eurovison site that wrote and article on the band.--Matrix17 11:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 13:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considered speedy G11 (blatant corporate spam, also unsourced), but asserted notability made me go ((prod)) route. tag removed in good faith with comment to add sources. I may reconsider nomination if article is significantly improved, but as written, article is still IMO unacceptably unsourced and promotional. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, a7 nonnotable and WP:NOT a free webhost. NawlinWiki 15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks rxnd ( t | € | c ) 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arkyan • (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article could be classed as being pointless and unencyclopedic, i.e. the same as Top Gear Dog. It's not really relevent to the Top Gear article and adds nothing to the Wiki Project. It is also unsourced, and even if it was, would still add nothing to the subject. It is a very minor part which Bentley had with regards to Top Gear. Davesmith33 14:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here, Here Guy. There is no way this is anything other than WP:FAN Davesmith33 17:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There may have been an odd reference added to the article now, but they are pityful to say the least and aren't exactly adding anything to the article. Davesmith33 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, when you compare the quality of this article to say, for example, the Top Gear Dog one, the difference is vast and TGD was deleted for the quality of the article!!!!! Davesmith33 09:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Presenter of two terrestrial TV programmes, and producer of a former TV show. He therefore easily meets the criteria "appeared in well-known films, stage plays, television, and other productions." from WP:N AlexJ 15:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the main source of the problem with this article has now been cleared up, I agree the deletion is no longer necessary. (Attn: DrFrench, that wasn't too difficult, was it?) Davesmith33 15:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Creating an AfD first is just extra work" - but a last resort when responding to childish behaviour like that from across the channel. Davesmith33 18:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. Lexicon (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity article about non-notable blogger. AlistairMcMillan 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Shimeru 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing notable about UW-Madison's steam tunnel system. Utility tunnel is more than sufficient to describe the function.n mikm 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite numerous requests for secondary sources, none have been forthcoming since January. Without secondary sources, articles cannot comply with WP:NPOV and thus should be deleted or a best stubbed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article survived a previous AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the message on the talk page admits, this is pure original research for a presumed medical condition. Lacks any reliable sources so is unverifiable Gwernol 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lack of independent reliable sources means notability concerns under WP:ORG were not addressed. Shimeru 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon cleaning up and sorting out some stubs, I came across this article and cleaned it up a little, however after this I began to wonder whether the article was notable as all it is for is a company which sponsors another company, although only created a few days ago it stil does not satisfy WP:NN Tellyaddict 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Unmaintainable and the material is better covered in Category:Time travel films and Time travel in fiction#Films. No improvement since the opening of the AfD.Cúchullain t/c 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A somewhat listcruft list done quite badly with no links to it. Incomplete and just another list. Reywas92Talk 15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 13:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical article by staffers at this station. Which turns out to be an internet-only station, with very little external coverage (brief story in local paper is about it). Guy (Help!) 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and replace with redirect to Spacetime. WjBscribe 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WjBscribe 19:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. "Young Mafia Family" gets 4 Google results. "Original Pouchon Connection" gets zero. Also nominating the article about his homey Shahid Hussain. Contested speedies. ... discospinster talk 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Progress of the SARS outbreak. While the sources are good, I just don't think notability is established; this is basically a news item on what sounds like an interesting and decent guy. However, he can and should be mentioned at the SARS outbreak article.Cúchullain t/c 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes no assertion of notability. The one source referenced seems to say little aside from the fact that he intended to become a Communist, though I'm not certain how that makes someone notable - nor does dying of SARS. A Google search turns up at best a couple of obituaries, aside from Wiki mirrors and the like. Anyway, in case it wasn't clear, nominating as this seems not to pass WP:BIO. Arkyan • (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Needs more reliable sources (especially on the BDSM aspect), and the sources that are there should be formatted properly, but it does appear verifiable.Cúchullain t/c 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced sexcruft, reads as original research. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is basically a how-to, and violates WP:NOR as well, which clashes with what Wikipedia is not. Orthologist 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Changed to Speedy Keep. With hindsight, I think that this article adresses a substantially independent topic and needs not redirect to any article.--Orthologist 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Avi 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable conference on constructed languages, only refs cited are the conference's own pages (no independent sources), conflict of interest (User:Saizai runs the conference) --Miskwito 22:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely made up, unsourced information. A google search shows no results for "Sergei Villonovich" ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 17:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Probably could have been speedied as CSD G7 given blanking by author. WjBscribe 23:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor political party. Article has no independent sources, and I can't find any on Google, Google News, Google Scholar, or Google Books, except for the party being listed on Florida election official web sites. Anyone can register a political party in Florida (i.e. it doesn't require a petition or minimum number of members) so I don't see how the fact that the party is registered can in itself support the article. PubliusFL 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maltese football player with alleged appearances for U18 national side. No sources. This was deleted as prod and restored on request. There's a discussion going on about notability of football players, so this makes a good test case what the community thinks. My opinion is delete unless sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 18:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: Delete NYT source does not even mention MathNEWS (only profquote) and Goucher mentions only in passing, thereby failing "multiple and non trivial". Toronto Sun reference mentioned here would only count as one. Recreate if suitable MULTIPLE non-trivial references can be listed as sources. Avi 15:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:ORG, and is non-notable. It also fails to cite sources and fails WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Big Brother (Sweden and Norway). The relevant info (i.e. that she won one year) is already there, and there's little else to keep.Cúchullain t/c 16:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Person only known for participating and winning the sixth season of Big Brother in Sweden. Any other mention of her is based on the fact that she's done cosmetic surgery. Strangnet 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if your opinion should be used we should have to delete all Reality show stars here on Wiki.--Matrix17 11:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2007 (UTC)
Comment: wow 7 minutes and then hackney comes and gives delete. what a surprise. No but seriously she is notable.She is also a model for Moore Magazine which make her notable.--Matrix17 11:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Strangnets nomination isnt 100% truthfull she has done modeling and is a requested model she also lives in spain and is pregnant which i wrote but was deleted as "gossip"--Matrix17 11:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are some sources [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Can we speedy close this discussion now? Epbr123 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes we can close this dicsussion now.--90.225.121.21 15:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well this page has been on this wiki since december 2006 and has been edited a number of times, why is it suddenly not notable,i respect the decisions but i just find it funny --Matrix17 19:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mackan, name and reference one more i have as oyu called it "Canvassed",please i really want to see it. And i think all people have an own opinion, i dont think me suggesting a thing make that person do what i say, everyone has an own opinion.--Matrix17 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commént:Rockstar i was attacked so i attacked back to false accusations nothing more nothing less. And do you see a vote from the person i so called "Cancassed" no i dont see it. So i guess their is no issue.bye bye. And i sitll think jessica is notable. but anyway lets keep her.And just for the record just because i am not popular here doesnt make it right to come and falsly accuse me of stuff. --Matrix17 12:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm kidding of course, it's clearly keep.--Wizardman 03:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate this article deletion discussion for early closing because all issues seem to have been resolved. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not assert notability. Furthermore, the article is in violation of WP:OR. This reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Pablothegreat85 18:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete and JUPE'd. — xaosflux Talk 23:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why repress this article? It is a documented practice. 208.81.93.142 (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a neologism. There are no hits on pubmed (autofellatio has 4). Google hits seem to be predominantly for an "urban dictionary" (a site similar to Wikipedia in accepting public edits, but with no verification requirements). The external link is to a page depicting autofellatio.
The article has recently been speedy deleted several times, and recreated [53]. I proposed its deletion as a "neologism with minimal currency" yesterday and this was supported by one other person but the tag has been removed. Therefore I bring it here. --Tony Sidaway 18:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arkyan • (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously deleted, recreated, and renominated, which failed not due to any of the keep votes making sense, but because of the large number of them by people who seem to think that a Wikimedia project is notable. This website fails all three criteria of WP:WEB:
Let me also refute the (rather weak) arguments from the previous nomination:
This fledgling project, while interesting, does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. Delete and redirect to Wikibooks. ElbridgeGerry t c block 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At best, original research. At worst, a collection of grandmotherly advice, unreferenced and without proof. I've listed the problems I found in the content on the talk page of the article and requested the original contributer to offer suggestions to improve it, but 5 days have passed and there has been no response from anyone. Please do have a look. Thanks xC | ☎ 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that this Michael Cairns is a real person. The original creator of the article has not responded to requests for verification. I am nominating this article for deletion because it looks like a hoax, it is unverifiable, and may be patent nonsense. Jaksmata 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The weakness of the sources and the inherent problem of having articles about things that have not been proven to actually exist were not convicingly addressed by those arguing that this article should be kept. As such those offering delete opinions are not only in the majority but make the more persuasive case. WjBscribe 23:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept twice, no consensus last time. What we have here is an article on a hypothetical sex act which has three references. Two of those are essentially the same. The first of those is an article mentioning in passing that the author has never heard of it actually happening, the second mentions in passing that the author has still not seen any evidence it has ever happened. The other reference is to a picture of Madonna in a yoga position which is something like what one might assume autocunnilingus might look like, but isn't actually autocunnilingus, and the article doesn't even mention it. In other words, it is completely made up and there are no actual references for its significance (or if there are, they are not in the article). Unlike autofellatio, which is a documented reality, the top references for this appear to be Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary. Absent at least one credible academic reference, this needs to go. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism coined about a month or so ago by a random blogger. Despite the claimed influence, this is nowhere near being on a par with Dawkins' concept yet. Most of the references are also evidently either bogus or misplaced (I'm not seeing the relevance in citing papers and books from the late 1950s to a word invented earlier this year for a concept which has emerged equally recently). Chris cheese whine 20:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An upcoming character who the article author says Comedy Central has decided to create. I suggest we delete the article per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Verifiability. GTBacchus(talk) 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Convert to disambig.Cúchullain t/c 16:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion for the following reasons:
— Loadmaster 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor local club; couple of news mentions, neither indicating genuine significance. Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 21:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-notability whatsoever presented. It is clear that these were written as some sort of a blog by these peoples themselves - we should remined people that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Baristarim 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 03:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-notability whatsoever presented. It is clear that these were written as some sort of a blog by these peoples themselves - we should remined people that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Baristarim 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of the deleted hoax article Cat the Movie (see log), made by a sockpuppet of the banned user Lyle123. No sources (obviously). I vote speedy delete (I didn't add it to the speedy deletion list because of a technicality - it's not the exact recreation of the old article since one letter is different, and it's created by a sockpuppet of a banned user rather than directly by a banned user. Esn 22:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arkyan • (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provides no valuable information, plus was recently vandalized -- dakern74 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The national team, even in a minor sport, should be notable. If it has information know know to be obsolete, then it should be edited to update it. What we have at present is a mere stub, but that measn it should be expanded, not deleted. Peterkingiron 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted and recreated, but a different enough article the second time around that I didn't feel a speedy for recreation applied, so I nominated this for PROD as a neologism. The article creator de-prodded it and in the process essentially admitted this is a neologism. In my opinion this should be deleted as such. Isotope23 23:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a pretty blatant neologism/thing made up one day (original "research" would be being kind, but the article engages in the "defence of necessity" that it "was introduced because the term double hat-trick was ambiguous"), but I'll refrain from speedying or PRODing this out of consideration of the possibility that this has become a notable term in the last four days -- despite no google news hits, and a mention in only one blog that I could find. Alai 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article entry violates several Wikipedia guidelines involved autobiographies and notability.
1. To be sure that David Jones wrote this page, you'd only have to look at the page history and his Wikipedia user page. He makes no effort to hide the fact that he is the creator of his own Wikipedia page.
2. He commonly goes by "Choronzon Club" or variants on the Internet. This can be verified by Googling and viewing his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/choronzon_club
3. He seems to fancy these alleged "criticisms" in order to achieve some sort of Crowleyesque notoriety. This can be verified on his MySpace page, where he posts a link to said "Black Lodge" PDF.
4. His citations in other Wikipedia articles, such as on the OTO page were added by him!
5. Note the guideline listed on the Wikipedia page creation header: "Do not write articles about yourself, your company, or your best friend."
6. Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, specifically sections 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, and 2.2. Also, please review guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion
PS: Why are the people involved in this article all coming from a Qwest DSL address in Eugene, Oregon (where Mr. Jones is also currently based)? :)
LevelSolve 18:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]