The result was Shred. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Entirely original research. WikiNew 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to someplace. Someone want to complete this please. Viridae Talk 11:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. A minor character in the Austin Powers canon. While major characters like Austin, Evil, Nigel etc are notable enough for their own articles, characters like Alotta Fagina are just jokes and aren't that notable. I am also nominating the following related pages because for similar reasons in that they aren't notable enough for their own articles. They're minor characters who serve to tell a joke.
CyberGhostface 00:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
References added
The result was speedy delete -- Wizardman 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
A non notable person (if real) and a likely hoax. Joanne Samuel was in Mad Max but she has her own article on WP, and there is no indication on WP or elsewhere that Grace Stephenson was her real name [ [5]] or that she is deceased. Contested PROD and CSD, and AFD tag has been deleted too. Slp1 00:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Denni. BryanG (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This page appears to be about a non-notable record label and one of the non-notable rappers on the label Carolfrog 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:45Z
Doesn't seem to be that notable of an actress. Is only one sentence long and is missing important information. CyberGhostface 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Seems to fail WP:WEB - according to [6] the only sites that have any information on this are like gamefaqs and "homestar runner wiki". Non-notable flash game. froth T 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to List of fictional medicines and drugs. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:45Z
Non-notable. Fictional drug that appeared in the TV show Scrubs. Barely worth merging into the Scrubs article as the character connected with Plomox (Julie Keaton) only appeared in 3 episodes. Croxley 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete for now. If Mai Time is ever created than of course she can be included there.-- Wizardman 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is little more than a short self-description of someone who is a TV show host (perhaps) in New Zealand and a red link to the name of that show. This is too little informational context for even a stub article entry. If "Mai Time" had an article (it doesn't), then this sort of information would belong there instead. Bumm13 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to Kekkaishi. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:46Z
Articles contains no references and fails to meet the WP:BIO standards Ozgod 01:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:33Z
Article about an online message board with no assertion of notability. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:BOLLOCKS and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual/internet guide. Hús ö nd 01:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:32Z
Non-notable Californian high school. Does not appear to meet the guidelines on Wikipedia:Schools. Almost nothing links to it. Also, has suffered a ridiculous amount of vandalism, presumably by its students; it would save a lot of trouble all round if it were deleted. Terraxos 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete: probable use of sock puppets,
SPAs,
WP:OR, lack of
reliable sources....
Cbrown1023
talk 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
Bad case of original research. Entire article appears to be based on personal observations of this street scam. Particularly bad is the Locations section, which is just a list of places and dates where various editors claim to have seen this happen. Croxley 01:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:31Z
Neologism. Article gives the impression that this term is an obscure neologism, and Google appears to support that. Croxley 01:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. However, Speaking of Animals, Unusual Occupations, and Popular Science Historic Film Series are copyright violations, so I am deleting them. Mango juice talk 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Note to next admin: I'm a bit worried about potential copyright infringement. do we have evidence of this use with permission? However, at the least, one of the two duplicates needs changed to a redirect. Adam Cuerden talk 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This AfD covers articles entered in an apparent PR spamming. They're all directly copied (with permission, it appears) from various pages at [8]. Shields Pictures itself doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. The site lists only these three movies as its products, and it's hard to find anything relevant information about the company without tripping over pictures of Brooke Shields. [9]
I've already reverted the blatant advertising at the Jerry Fairbanks [10] article. Some other content was woven into the Popular Science article. Mikeblas 01:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC
I am also nominating the following related pages because of their spammy, marketing content:
-- Mikeblas 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
*Merge I'm with DGG on that but I know I wouldn't want to do it. If I did it, I'd cut the info back to the most basic and important handful of facts. Currently, they're a morass of spammish details intended to be promotional, IMO.
Pigman
Talk to me 06:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
Sorry for starting on such a bad foot. I rewrote most of the text so that it is neutral in tone and unique to Wikipedia (an administrator helped clarify Wikipedia's copyright concerns to me, fully understandable). I have also done the same on "Popular Science Historic Film Series," "Unusual Occupations" and "Shields Picture, Inc." (some work on the "Jerry Fairbanks" article as well). I also did my best to cleanup the inventory lists and random links (as requested) on all three film series, and added many facts and dates. I have also I have done my best to de-PR them as well, and am now getting some help from the Wikipedia adoption program. Please let me know what else I can do to make these strong Wikipedia Articles. Once I get the OK, I'd like to add some photos (a 1943 picture of Bob Hope presenting Jerry Fairbanks with one of his Academy Awards, a photo of the Coat of Arms/Shield MGM prop from the 1952 film "The Bad and the Beautiful" that is referenced in the Shields Pictures, Inc. article, and a photo or two from each of the film libraries. Should I get approval of these pictures before I add them? Thanks for the help, CCBear 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable by any standard of which I'm aware, except for the assertion of use in an unspecified video (which kept me from a speedy nomination). No sources provided. RJASE1 Talk 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep as original nomination was on based on a reverted revision of the article, and upon WP:SNOW as not even the nominator has argued to delete. — Doug Bell talk 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Laundry list of examples of joke. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Google search proves type of joke exists but does not return any results conferring enough notability to warrant its own page. Merge to Joke under type of jokes. — Ocatecir Talk 02:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:30Z
No relevant Google hits to person's name other than this one, which appears to be a site that anyone who paints can be listed on. I suspect that it is a vanity/spam article. Bumm13 02:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Other than being yet another Sesame Street-themed product, the book in no way asserts encyclopedic notability; it is merely another picture book designed for very young children. Bumm13 03:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. -- Core desat 03:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Original research. As mentioned on the talk page, there's little to no evidence that this is anything other than idle chatter. VT hawkeye talk to me 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Mrld 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:28Z
Not notable, likely an autobiographical article. Cacophony 04:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Denni. BryanG (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is about an non-existent person it was made as a joke using Carmelo Anthony's information and changing some instances of him being male to female, the photo in the userbox is Beyonce who doesn't even play basketball - Dark Dragon Flame 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:28Z
Only Google hits (all 15 of them) are commercial links to purchase the product; closest thing to a reference are reviews at Amazon.com; item likely cannot be researched using traditional sources (books, periodicals, etc.) Bumm13 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge/redirect all to Kill Switch...Klick. Mango juice talk 14:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I previously speedily deleted this as A7, but it now asserts notability. These are articles about a musician, his band, and his record label. However, none appear to be notable per WP:MUSIC. Searching for all of these bring up forum posts and download pages, but nothing that would satisfy the notability guideline.
Also nominating:
-- Core desat 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I added two complimentary pages about my discography outside of Kill Switch...Klick and my Label and Film Company. These are also being considered for deletion. I was not using these as Vanity Pages. My own websites get thousands of visitors a day. I doubt anyone could get "more famous" from a listing on Wikipedia, I just want the facts about myself to be accurate. If people post about me on WIki I would apprectiate that. DIY. D.A.
Print citculation is 300,000 in the Chicago and Mid West. The article also explains my progression from musician to film maker. I also have the MTV pay stubs (through ASCAP) for material on the Made Show if need be, as well as an archive of Kill Switch...Klick press including cover mention on Outburn Magazine, full pages in A.P., The Stranger, The Rocket, Seattle Times, etc. Most of this was pre-internet. The reason to keep the pages separate, is- they are separate entities. I constructed the D.A. Sebasstian page, as Discography, Writting Credits for national magazines and Film Creds. These are a separate things from Kill Switch...Klick and people who want to know who the band is/was may or may not be interested in the Surf & Twang music I'm making now nor the articles I write for Ol' Skool Magazine or CK Deluxe. I have also progressed into a film maker. The film Hot Rod girls Save The World is getting a huge underground buzz and is due out in mid 2007. It seems jumbled to have all this under one heading. D.A. Sebasstian -- Sebasstian 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
-- Sebasstian 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
http://www.maximumink.com/articles.php?articleId=714
Press archives (all from hard copy that can be provided- not all available) http://www.go-kustom.com/kskpress01.html
In print for Go-Kustom with current iTunes links. http://www.go-kustom.com/catalog.html
D.A. Sebasstian movie links http://www.go-kustom.com/hotrodgirlssavetheworld.html
What else do you need?
The links to my web pages are archives of previously non-web material (print magazines). I offered to mail you hard copies. I save this stuff for my kids. Did you look at the links? This is riduculous. -- Sebasstian 04:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
BTW how long has the Kill Switch...Klick article been up? Who originally created it? I had never heard of Wikipedia until a year or so ago- I was Googling Kill Switch...Klick to quell rumors that we broke up- and Wiki came up. I checked the page and there was quite a few bit of mis-information. I found that I could correct the info. Later I heard a piece on NPR about the Wiki experiments in Encylopedic information and it made sense. Why wasn't the Kill Switch...Klick article put up for deletion a year ago? Why didn't anyone delete it a year ago? It's virtually the same, except for a few corrections. -- Sebasstian 04:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
-- Sebasstian 06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Please check this link and look at the numbers. http://uncutvideo.aol.com/users/dasebasstian/0a5ef121dcedf7bbe330dbc3c043c0e9?index=2 -- Sebasstian 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dark Gravity 08:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
“Thanks bro. I try. I tried arguing with Wiki about it. Doesn't look good. They said because I amended the page (for some info corrections) that it's a conflict of interest or "COI." I had added a D.A. Sebasstian page (as a CD and writers list- I also write for CK Deluxe and Ol Skool Rodz Magazines once in awhile) and one for my label (Go-Kustom Rekords) with the intent of taking that info off of the KsK pages, keeping the KsK page purely about the band, and not me or the label. Makes sense to me, but not to Wiki. They say that all the pages should be condensed or deleted. If they condense the three pages- my understanding is they will nix the Kill Switch...Klick page and put it all under my name. I don't want this as KsK has/had other members and has a life of it's own- plus there are many links back to that page from other "industrial and electronic" Wiki pages. I tried forwarding links from my web site, where I had archived the print media (as proof that all three entities - KsK, D.A. Sebasstian & Go-Kustom Rekords had separate magazine and newspaper articles, but they said that was not acceptable because I had collected them on my site (another COI). These articles were in magazines that do not put their content on the web. I also offered to send hard copies for review. They would not address that...“ -- Sebasstian 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Daniel- Honestly I am not taking it personally. Ive been in the media business since the 1980's so I have a thick skin. I've made my money and made my mark and been lucky enough to have complete artistic freedom. My whole argument is to make an information flow relevent to the Article's subject title. Something that Wiki sometiems lacks (but obviously strives for). I saw the Kill Switch...Klick Article becoming an "achivements of D.A. Sebasstian Article." I didn't think that was fair to Mike Ditmore and Jeremy Moss and others who have worked in KsK. After the other two pages were established (Go-Kustom Rekords and D.A. Sebasstian) I had planned on editing out the Go-Kustom Rekords info and D.A. Sebasstian info and keep it about the band. To me it was a design issue. The links I had provided on my site were for the D.A. Sebasstian citations in Seattle Magazine, Fangoria Magazine, Hemmings Motor News, etc. National press. If as an editing decision- you guys decided to condense, I would rather you just delete the D.A. Sebasstian Article and Go-Kustom Rekords. There is already too much info about me in the KsK Article. It has become convoluted. Also I would not delete the Ol' Skool Rodz or CK Deluxe pages. You can go down to any (and I mean any) store and buy those magazines. They are a Godsend to Kustom Kulture and a true resource. The fact that I have written an article or two in the magazines does not make it a COI. I gain nothing by their inclusion on WIki. -- Sebasstian 17:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
My opinion is that it should remain as is. All the info is current and for the most part acurate. I don't feel there is a conflict of interest at all. You have a person who has projects that have bled into each other. Hope you can work it out.
To chime in- Daniel the D.A. Sebasstian page is only a list. So no real writing was involved as a COI. One of the ways to avert a COI is by Disclosure- and I have been very forth wright. Personally I would say 90 percent (unverified number) of ALL musicians Articles On Wiki are created by The Band, Artists, Record Label or Publiscists on Wiki. I'm sure fans add to the pages or add articles on older obscure bands all the time, but the level of information on most is beyond what the average fan could ever know. I have read dozens of Band Articles that look exactly like press releases. BTW If you delete the pages and do a redirect (as you stated above- and yes I could live with that) and then a fan or interested party tries putting the D.A. page back up again, will it stand or be deleted? I am an extremely honest person (verifiable) and would not try this under an anonymous log in. However word is getting out about this and quite a few people are very pissed (very verifiable). Also if anyone makes a comment please sign you name. -- Sebasstian 22:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The other things is- is it possible to ammend the COI guidelines? Who would I talk to about this?-- Sebasstian 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
-- Sebasstian 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
-- Sebasstian 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks. If your looking for notoriety for Go-Kustom, try typing the word "Kustom" in Google. I think it comes up in the top 10-13. Given all the kustom kulture and car websites with the word "kustom" in them, that is mind boggling (or googling). -- Sebasstian 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Actually we come up 10 on Google out of over 2,000,000 entries! Is that note worthy or not worthy? -- Sebasstian 01:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. – Steel 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:WEB Samw 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
* NOTE: This debate has been included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/AfD. John Reaves (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect to Coral Springs High School. —dgies t c 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
contested PROD for high school marching band. merge & redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permian High School Band Cornell Rockey 04:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Special education. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:27Z
As per the first AfD back in 2005, this is an unsourced dicdef, which violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As such, and just like the result of the original AfD, I'd recommend deleting the content and placing a {{wi}} tag to link to wiktionary, which is a dictionary. Since that debate was forever ago, it seems like it's appropriate to revisit. Perhaps someone is aware of some verifiable use that would expand the article beyond a mere definition? -- Scientizzle 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Grandmasterka [15]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. worthawholebean talk contribs 04:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:27Z
A game that exists only in beta form. No assertion of notability. No external sites link to the project page.
[16]. It's not even clear if copyright for the Pokemon franchise has been obtained. Prod, contested by author, without explanation.
eaolson 04:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete, fails WP:CORP. NawlinWiki 02:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Meets none of the WP:CORP requirements. worthawholebean talk contribs 04:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:25Z
Should be deleted per WP:MUSIC, non-notable band Joebengo 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Irishguy [17]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Not Notable / Vanity BankingBum 05:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability, possible G11 (Advertisement)? Also does not have any citations. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Steel 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
First of all, I would like to mention that this article has been pointed out to me by Kneale. Before you post your recommendations in this discussion, please send some kind words to him, who seems to have left Wikipedia without warning.
I am copying some of my own comments to above user here:
Jimmy Urine is not notable according to Wikipedia standards. He violates WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO.
After a brief google search on "Little Jimmy Urine", you can see that the web pages already violate WP:RS, since some of those pages are interviews and reviews, sources that are biased in favor of Little Jimmy Urine, thus violating WP:NPOV. Also, a quote from WP:MUSIC states:
Clearly, the Little Jimmy Urine article cannot be supported by such web sites, since the interviews involve Jimmy Urine talking about himself, giving us biased information for the article in question.
The guideline on notability requires that:
I did a broader google search on "Jimmy Urine". Do you see how only 3 web pages on "Jimmy Urine" appear? Afterwards, a search on "Mindless Self Indulgence" continues. This tells me that Jimmy Urine is only notable because of his role in Mindless Self Indulgence. If he has any notability outside of MSI, then that might warrant an article. In addition, I did a search on my school's Proquest Platinum database, and there was only 1 periodical that mentioned Jimmy Urine's name, and in passing. That's the trouble with this Wikipedia article. Sources on this guy only mention him in passing. The main subject is MSI.
Look at this version (current during the time I post this message), and you will see that the article is not backed up by sources. It could potentially be filled with WP:OR. The article does not WP:CITE any reliabe sources (RS) (or any sources for that matter).
The article also violates WP:LIVING and WP:V.
the article should be merged with the mindless self indulgence article
Therefore, I request that this article be deleted. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 20:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- Core desat 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Proceedual nomination for deletion as begun by an IP user. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 23:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I am puzzled by this entry. If I understand right, an anonymous editor has nominated this article for deletion, but has indicated no grounds for the proposal. It is hard to see why an article on a topic harped upon on several Web sites should be excluded from Wikipedia. Lima 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
*Delete per
WP:V, some rumor on a few websites isn't encyclopedic. --
Kendrick7
talk 07:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
At last a reason is proposed. However, the websites present the oath not as a rumour, but as a fact. Just look up the sites mentioned in the article. It is also published, as fact, in at least one fairly widely read book. One of the websites is that of the somewhat important Society of St. Pius X. Another, to which Wikipedia does not allow links (but whose name includes "fisheaters"), no longer gives the oath as an undoubted fact, but it still says: "You should be familiar with the above form of the oath because it is often seen in traditionalist circles." "Often seen in traditionalist circles" - surely a very good reason why Wikipedia should speak of it. Lima 09:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Kendrick has gone too far, making unilateral changes in complete disregard of others, indeed against the opposition of others and without the support of even one other person. Now he has gone further: inventing pages that claim that "the Papal Oath" can mean various other things. Can he quote a single source outside of Wikipedia that says the profession of faith found in the Liber Diurnus is called "the Papal Oath"? ...
I trust I do have support for moving the article this discussion is about to "The Papal Oath". This is unambiguous: no papal oath other than the one attributed to the Popes from Agatho to Paul VI is known as "the Papal Oath". It is NPOV, while "Papal Oath (Traditionalist Catholic)" contradicts the POV of those Traditionalist Catholics who claim that the text in question is not just a Traditionalist Catholic Papal Oath, but a genuine oath actually taken by the Popes.
The question of keeping or not keeping the article has been settled long ago, and there was no real need to continue that discussion. The discussion now is on the name of the article that we are keeping. Do we support the move to "The Papal Oath"?
The result was keep.-- Wizardman 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
A rambling article about a non-notable video game that was never finished or released. — ptk✰ fgs 05:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:46, 5 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}} . |
Non-notable fancruft Vicarious 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I've been watching this page for a while. A google seach for "speak no more war hungary" only returns a youtube page, the sources quoted are a Hungarian myspace-type page and youtube. Can anyone confirm this is legitimate and/or notable ? Travelbird 06:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I disagree, the source quoted is not a "myspace-type" page at all, but a Hungarian celebrity page which includes information about Tom Deak, that is featured in the article such as his name and birthday, and information about the song, and that it was a sell-published release. The other source are from a forum post, by a hungarian, but is relied upon for only a few facts in the article, such as his unemployment and bankruptcy. the information is cited as alleged and according to some sources, and is not stated as blanket fact. I don't see why an extrnal link to the ytube viral video is inapprioprate either. also, The page is obviosly being worked on, and is not yet complete. secondly, your major complaint seems to be the sources, this seems strange to me considering thousands of wikipedia articles which lack any kind of source, but ar not immediatly or ever put up for deletion. If your questioning whether the subject is legitmate, I think this viral video star deserves a wikipedia entry, should we also delete zladko's page also? I seriosly question the legitmacy of this deletion request. Opetyan— Opetyan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I second Opetyan's comments. The call for deletion is unjustified, especially for such an incipient article. If this article is considered up for deletion, you would also have to explain why most other viral phenomenon pages on wikipedia (like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlad) are still up. The fact that the formally obscure video originated in Hungary doesn't help you out much on a google search. If anything, this article should be marked for clean up; the notion of deletion is just silly. Rikoozik — Rikoozik ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Yes, I am the creator of this article. That is not an argument against, and I hope you are not implying its use as such. And yes, I haven't done much aside from this, but I want this article to be as complete as it can possibly be from the small amount of information available online. And I'm hoping that now that the page exists, someone from Hungary is able to add more information as the majority of the information is in Hungarian. Rikoozik
a effort seems to have been made to try and discredit the legitmacy of the article by critizing me and also Rikoozik. stating we are a single purpose user, etc. while I don't know about Rizoozik, I have personally annonymously been contributing to wikipedia for a few years already, and decided to become a memeber specifically because of this article. I look forward to contributing to other articles in the future, and don't indent to push any agenda, as suggested. back to dealing with the article, and not user critisism, I remember seeing a speak the hungarian rapper article as a requested article. Opetyan
I have already answered allegations that I am a single purpose user with a hidden agenda, that is not true, and shouldn't be used as a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the article. I don't know why this was brought up again. I want to point out that there are hundreds of wikipedia articles with little or no sources, and they are all not up for deletion, but marked with "citiation needed" or "reference needed". It least give Rikozzik and myself some time to come up with what newspaper or magazine articles, if hungarian celebrity websites are not considered a credible source (for some reason). again, I find myself in a very funny situation having to defend Speak. P.S aren't photographes primary sources? their used in the article to show his name is "Tom Deak" Opetyan
When you decide to remove a section of the article, you want to post this in the dicussion section? 68.122.222.190 01:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:22Z
The article does not meet the requirements of WP:BAND. speedy tag was removed. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Bumping from speedy; this is a really bad idea for listcruft. But not patent nonsense. Awyong J. M. Salleh 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Categorisation would seem to me best research tool.
I was overruled and people suggested it be listified. I find the subject fascinating - far more than a list of billionaires (and I have growing sympathy with the person who created "people who have been pied" - I wish I hadn't voted to delete it now!) There is pathos, redemption, revenge and hubris in these stories. The articles on wikipedia don't always reflect this aspect of a person's life and i would either like to flesh this out within the articles or do some pen pictures on this list which deal with it (rather than the artistic or other career of the subject). Johnnybriggs 07:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a private airfield, which seems to be little more than a long piece of grass, and seems to be one of many similar airfields in existance. I don't know much about private airfields but I would venture that this is not notable. Also, the creator of this article, Haz kk ( talk · contribs), also created Atlantic International Airways ( AfD discussion), which was deleted as unverifiable (possible hoax). — Quarl ( talk) 2007-02-26 07:56Z
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Borderline advertisement, although not too gushing. Created by someone from the company that makes it. As I wade through the Google results for SCInterface, they mostly seem to be the company's own promotional material. (And some of them are other uses of the name "SCInterface.") Anyone familiar with game server technology want to comment on the notability of this product? FreplySpang 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article title is a neologism, a google search for "Newark Airport Interchange" yields 14 unique results, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Most of the article is original research; any material that would be salvageable for merge is already in the articles on the respective highways. And for the icing on the cake, not that it matters, but the original author and only major contributor is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet/vandal. NORTH talk 08:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You better god dam keep it! I 512theking, created this article. listen to my little brother JohnnyAlbert10, I like this article and if you guys delete it i will vandalize wikipedia like i did in the good old days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.147.5.154 ( talk • contribs)
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
NN Nick Catalano contrib talk 08:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g4, repost, not significantly different from first version. NawlinWiki 15:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ATT only other sources I could find were sponsor press pages and article cites no sources. Non-notable. Notability attempts to be established by showing a bucket load of online league wins but no "pro" wins. BJ Talk 09:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - the topic has not been published in peer-reviewed journals and does not appear to have any support beyond that of its creator. Richardcavell 01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: proposed calendar with no sign of verifiable references from reliable sources -- Pak21 09:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - The subject of this article does not appear to have any widespread notability or support beyond that given by its creator. If it appears in academic literature then we might reconsider. - Richardcavell 01:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The result was Delete - all these calendars are not verifiable, are not the subject of any noteworthy academic debate, and have no support beyond that of their creators. - Richardcavell 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 03:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The list is a loose association of reality show winners by program. Even if the list was expanded to include all winners of all reality TV series (not just "the most popular, big budget, ongoing North American Reality TV series" as of this writing), I don't see how that would be valuable. An example: how would a winner of Survivor compare with a winner of Project Runway? In comparison, a list of all game show winners would really appear as being loosely associated; although a list with a limited criterion, as with American game show winnings records, would have some meaning. There is also an existing Category:Reality show winners, but I am not necessarily nominating for that reason. Tinlinkin 09:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 12:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
disputed PROD for NN-magazine delete Cornell Rockey 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rlevse 02:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
failure to meet notability guidelines Mjp202 19:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:21Z
Not notable enough for an article, was only 1 evening event. Don't see anywhere it should be merged into either. Scot t 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
An indiscriminate, directory-like list of crew members (without actors) that reads like it's from IMDB. Tinlinkin 09:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Crackpot without independent sources, most known for his appearances in a few films, most notably
What the bleep do we know. He is already discussed in the articles on the films, which, since the films have sufficient reliable and reputable sources written about them, satisfy NPOV. However, there aren't sufficient sources to have an NPOV article on Wolf, and as can be seen, the article currently uses only his website and the WTBDWK website as sources. For a person whose views on physics fundamentally conflict with those of the scientific community, as explained in the WTBDWK article, these sources are not sufficient.
Philosophus
T 09:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC) -- see response below
reply
The result was Keep - At time of nomination, lacked sources, but three independent reliable sources have been added establishing notability in their market. —dgies t c 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable radio show - lacks multiple features in independent reliable sources. Google turns up 40 unique hits [30] amoung them a NUVO's Best of Indy 2003 - #1 in "Best morning radio show", [31] but other results are trivial mentions of the show. Searching for "Smiley Morning Show" nets 179 unique results but without more relevance. [32] Awyong J. M. Salleh 15:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Three more IP addresses on the article's talk page seem to be "Keep" votes. Would these count? (Is there a WP policy against it?) David 04:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. As a rationale was requested, the arguments that this is simply a directory or definition were appropriately addressed, and it was shown that this is a viable subject for a sourced encyclopedia article, and can include information beyond that which would be appropriate for a dictionary. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:WINAD. This is the last given name list remaining on Wikipedia. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a particular country (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. There is strong precedent for this kind of deletion; recently, all lists of given names have been moved to Wiktionary and deleted, please see the list of discussions below.
Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit· t 10:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Rlevse 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Ill-defined, POV, unencyclopaedic and ummaintainable list. Fails against many parts of WP:NOT Nuttah68 10:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
lets include the rest of the Films by genre list. The Funny animal list is supposed to serve the same purpose as the examples listed.
The result was speedy deleted by TexasAndroid [33]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Seems to only be a INSTALL doc for installing Debian on a Jornada. :: ZJH ( T C E) 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Right just delete this for now and i'll contact Debian Ports,HpcFactor and Handhelds.org and ask them to do a Distro review, then i'll repost the Info assuming these are reliable sources for you,I will also ask kristoffer@jlime.com the Current Jornada Linux Kernel Maintainer at www.jlime.com to do a review of the Jornada Linux Kernel running on 720 Degrees Debian but he mabey a bit biased towards his own distro :P
The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm unable to find any English sources about this publication, and the original author now seems intent on either blanking the article or filling it with nonsense. -- Onorem 11:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a product guide, nor the yellow pages. Both pages suffer from lack of sourcing, tend to attract excessive external links, and are basically promotion for a variety of brands, many of which are not particularly notable. >Radiant< 12:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages:
Talk:List_of_screen_recording_software#Pricing_Information
The result was speedy delete, misspelled dictionary definition. Kusma (討論) 11:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No content bar a dictionary type definition Agathoclea 12:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Google search for Basong [43] is limited while a majority of them are unrelated to the subject. A more restrictive search [44] should reveal the non-notability of subject. Delete Awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy __earth ( Talk) 12:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Kick off Survivor. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I will re-nominate this NN Survivor contestant who hasnt done anything since leaving the show. Lack of notable secondary references outside game show, A quick google search (minus Wikipedia results) turns up around 1,000 results but most are forum posts from the Survivor game show, plus a few on her official website. I'm sure we dont create pages on losing game show contestants on shows such as Jeopardy or Deal or No Deal because they've been on a game show. (well except for the obvious notable celebrities on the special editions). -- Arnzy ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 17:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep; inconclusive as to whether this need to be merged or not, but no one aside the nom is asking for deletion. The need to merge, if any, should be talked through on article talk page(s), but not in this venue. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is identical to at least other 4 articles on the philosophical paradigm of simulated reality. only this one not even trying to add anything new, written in a child like way and repeat even it self. it could link to the Dream_argument or evil demon. yet I believe it is completely redundant.
The result was Merged with Cornell Green (offensive tackle). NawlinWiki 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Cornell D. Green does not appear to exist, at least according to ESPN and google. I suppose I could be wrong... Grung0r 12:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:19Z
DELETE --
Not very notable. The notability of National Spelling Bee winners is debatable, but definitely not 2nd place spellers. See ongoing discussion @ Samir Patel under Articles for deletion. Onyx the hero 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure about our guidelines for web forums - it claims 24,000 members, which is a lot. Montchav 11:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by TexasAndroid [50]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Kawasaki, or is this non-notable? Montchav 11:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is a POV fork for Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
What is interesting, there are more admissions of khachkars being destroyed by Armenians themselves, especially around their capital of Yerevan -- for example, at this specialized khachkar website - [52]
"Endangered Khachkars in Armenia and Artsakh It is particularly tragic that khachkars are also endangered in Armenia and Artsakh. They are disappearing, being damaged or moved. Most endangered are the old khachkar fields located near today’s graveyards, where khachkars are being eradicated for the creation of new burial space. The “crown of thorns” belongs to the khachkar field in Arinch near Yerevan. The situation is threatening in Noratus as well, where new burials are encroaching upon the khachkar field from at least three sides. The old graveyard of Areni is in almost the same situation. The movement of khachkars voluntarily by different individuals is a widespread practice. In some cases this is done to allegedly create a new holy place, for example, the case of Karmir Dalakner of Gegharquniq region where the khachkar was brought from Karvachar. Another case of moved khachkars is due to the decoration of new offices and especially entertainment establishments, as for example in the Vank village in Karabakh. The third and the most condemning practice is when khachkars are merely disappearing to decorate individual yards and houses. Khachkars are being damaged also by believers, worshipers and casual visitors, who light candles on them or write their names on them or engage in rituals that are damaging the carvings." See gallery of photos here - [53]
Moreover, the destruction of cultural heritage (or Cultural Genocide, as some Armenians dubbed it) in Armenia, like elsewhere, has reached dangerous proportions and led to many protests both in press and in streets -- [54], [55], [56], and [57]
Hence, if the Armenian and pro-Armenian view on destruction of khachkars by allegedly Azerbaijanis and allegedly in Naxcivan is to be included, then a contrarian view should be included too -- not just Azerbaijan's denial of wrongdoing by the government, but Armenians' own admission of breaking, destroying and otherwise mishandling their own khachkars on their own territory. -- AdilBaguirov 13:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep This is not a POV fork, if anything it's more favorable towards the Azerbaijan postion than the article it's claimed to be a fork of. Article is sourced. Nominator in his 13:50 post has stated a goal of purging wikipedia of edits he disagrees with. Edward321 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong KeepThe article describes intentional destruction with purposeful aim of destruction of a nations heritage - cultural genocide. The destruction of 19th century Yerevan is done with the AIM of development and through corruption, etc ... Example of neglect and corruption rather than attempt by Armenians to eradicate their own history. Destruction might be comprable to what happened in grand central station. ( Hetoum 07:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)) reply
The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense neologism, see WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Total and utter nonsense -- SockpuppetSamuelson
The result was keep, only because there's no article that we can merge it to.-- Wizardman 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This minor character in The O.C. only appeared briefly in one episode and I believe is not notable enough to warrant her own article. She can be mentioned in the Cohen family articles, but I feel that this character is not notable enough for an article of her own. Too little has happened in regards to this character and she has had very little impact on the series. Sillygostly 11:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails
WP:WEB in all aspects, inside joke filled page, etc.
ElbridgeGerry 00:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was KEEP but RENAME to Dannielynn Marshall Stern paternity case. The situation is notable, the person is not. Herostratus 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, moving to AFD instead. No opinion. A ecis Brievenbus 14:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:16Z
Article appears to be unnecessary listcruft (being as real names are on every single wrestler article). Also, the article itself says it may may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness as there are too many wrestlers to reasonably add to this article This creates certainty of endless cruft if article was maintained. Any cross-referencing impossible as gimmick names are listed seperately. The article, in addition, lists no references. Suriel1981 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, fails WP:BAND. NawlinWiki 16:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability. Sounds like someone's garage band EvilOverlordX 15:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by TexasAndroid [59]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
NN actress. This was proded and the tag was removed with no improvement. Possibly vanity. Article makes no claims of notability. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was previously nominated for deletion on January 13, and the result of the discussion was "no consensus." I believe that this character is insufficiently notable to have its own page. Delete and then semi-redirect (i.e., having a link to King Kong from Jimmy). -- Nlu ( talk) 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Gnan garra 01:28, 7 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}} . |
Fails WP:WEB for lack of multiple reliable substantial third-party coverage. Currently protected apparently due to editwarring about whether a reference to a site administrator having allegedly commited a crime should be included. That text (see history) contains a reference to a newspaper story about that person's arrest; however the website is only mentioned in passing there. Sandstein 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep. With a website the size of this one, it is very difficult to find "third party" sources that are not directly involved (as I am). It appears that the push for deletion is coming from a (?)small group of former or disaffected members. The simple truth is that Railpage is the first stop for almost everyone seeking information about Australian railways, and this is reason enough for keeping the entry live. Latrodectus 14:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. Correction, I think one arbitrator disagreed with the subject, the other approached it from a neutral point of view and locked discussion with the subject material in place.
The incident was newsworthy being printed in an article in the Herald Sun. His actions were never properly explained, and there were calls for him to be removed at the time. crawford+busted
I'll again use the comparision, if an leading individual of a company that featured an article here on Wikipedia was accused or convicted of a crime associated with his role at the company, the company of course would not condone the crime, but mention of that accused actions (even if found not guilty) if it was recorded in the mainstream printed media and the boards subsequent refusal to sack or reprimand the individual or publicly distance itself would surely rate a mention within that wikipedia article on that company.
Even if some people find mentioning his name objectional, It is my opinion that there should be some mention of this "small" "social controversy". Wikipedia has allowed mention the mention of "controversies" elsewhere - see Post-match "handbag incident". Super_14_Final.
I fear there will never be any consensus to any proposed changes even if there is only just a passing mention in the article of the "incident".
I did propose Arbitration, however others have proposed for reasons already indicated (uncited material, etc) that the article is a candiate for deletion.
Tezza1 20:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Note: At this point I have semiprotected this AfD due to the influx of unhelpful comments by new and anonymous users. Sandstein 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Transwiki -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Clearly a neologism, no notability. Violates
WP:NEO and
WP:NOTE.
Sr13 (
T|
C) 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
Sorry for the confusion...changing nomination. Clearly a dicdef, fails WP:WINAD. Sr13 ( T| C) 05:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Only one article links here, looks like just a simple press writeup. -- Vossanova o< 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:15Z
Not notable autobiographical musician article. Fails WP:MUSIC Selket Talk 18:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NN radio announcer (fails WP:BIO). Only one of the four references below mentions Nottage. The one reference only trivially mentions him. WP:PROD contested. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Term only used by opponents of the well-accepted medical concept that cholesterol plays an important role in the development of atherosclerosis. Should not have its own page. If suitable for merge at all, we could try The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, which represents these "critics". JFW | T@lk 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Nothing links here, looks like advertising. -- Vossanova o< 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Notable event, yes, but I question the notability of this individual. Furthermore, this seems like an attack piece rather than an encyclopedia article. kingboyk 19:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:12Z
Vanity article. Author/subject claims to have worked with John Lennon, but I can't find any independent confirmation with Google of this association with Lennon, nor of its notability. (For instance, it's possible he did work with Lennon, but only as a session musician, which would not make him notable.) Would appreciate opinions of Wikipedians with expertise in pop music. Psychonaut 19:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every appearance in every medium of not only a katana, but of any sword or sword-like weapon that in the opinion of an editor resembles a katana or may have been inspired by a katana. No sources to back up the inclusion of any of the items. Note that the content was split from Katana initially and so should not be merged back to that article per the desires of the editors who maintain that page. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semtex in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture. Otto4711 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - for all the same reasons that Category:Fictional narcissists was deleted. The list is hopelessly subjective and requires editors to impose their POV in deciding who to list and who not to. The introduction to the article is a great indicator of why it should be deleted: "This article comprises a list of fictional characters who may be consider[ed] to be narcissists." Considered by whom, under what criteria? The list is indiscriminate and constitutes an improper loose association based on a character trait that the members may or may not share in common according to the interpretation of any particular editor. And for good measure, no sources, reliable or otherwise. Otto4711 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. Bucketsofg 02:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail the Wikipedia:Notability (music) tests. Psychonaut 20:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Not sure where this previous AfD is. –
Steel 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
Unreleased first album by an relatively unknown artist. If it comes out and is a hit, maybe. Richfife 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
nn wrestling personality, had brief wrestling managing career, wrote 2 modestly selling (among wrestling fans, not mainstream) books, and has website WrestleCrap with current alexa of 142,115. The only independent review I can find outside of wrestling websites is from an NYC tabloid. See afd for Scott Keith for precedent, he is more published than RD. Booshakla 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted under criterion A7 by Irishguy with reason (A7). Kyra ~(talk) 11:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Has twice been prodded. Dubious notability. Autobiography / advert (evidence here). -- RHaworth 21:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. While only the nominator and one other user have expressly advocated deletion (a third user has all but done so), the fact that the calls of "Do Not Delete" are made by anons and there are no sources provided beyond a vague "interview about this" tips the balance BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This sounds like a hoax to me, with no sources, and several "track names" critiquing what Mr. Combs has been up to (see "Name Change," "Press Rewind," "Back Then, but Right Now," and "Mase on My Dick") Strong delete. Tom Danson 21:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This was confirmed yesterday by Terrence and Rocsi on BET's 106th and Park. It's real. Diddy is just poking fun at himself.
I saw Diddy give an interview about this on the red carpet.
The result was Merge and redirect to Apex, North Carolina. —dgies t c 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neighborhood; it's not even an entire town. Seems to be too small to stand any chance of proving notability. Veinor (talk to me) 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The user/s who've spent ages making the page would have been well-served spending ages establishing notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable football (soccer) club; WP:CORP states that only clubs in the top ten levels of the English football league system are considered inherently notable. No other grounds for notability have been stated in the article.
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable sowing method: 202 ghits, most of which do not actually refer to the practice. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise new scientific concepts. Part Deux 22:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-league English football club that falls several levels below currently accepted criteria (i.e. playing at Level 10 or above) for notability fchd 22:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is unsourced and unverified speculation. Can find no indication on the news archives for the Black Eyed Peas website of an upcoming album, let alone one by this title. The only source provided is this article on Billboard.com, which only verifies the first paragraph of the article, and is the only verifiable source cited in the article. Some of it is written as outright speculation, and at least a quarter of the article is about stuff unrelated to the article.
The result was withdrawn, appears notable. Part Deux 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable corp: only 200 ghits by my count (I know that's not a reason, but it doesn't appear notable anyway) Part Deux 23:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. BJ Talk 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears on the surface to be an neologism. neon white talk 23:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Originally tagged for speedy deletion, but declined by Proto. Tagger requested that this be sent to AfD if speedy was declined, so here we are. I cast no vote. – Steel 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:11Z
No hits on Google for any of the main subjects of the article (except Royal Tarlair). The youtube video looks like a fake and the whole article appears to be a hoax. Sorry if I'm spoiling someone's fun, but... Smalljim 23:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:10Z
Article is an advertisement for a non-notable unsourced company. Masterpedia 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Rlevse 19:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
law group, listed for a speedy. I doubt its notable, but I don't know enough about law to be sure. Delete unless sources are added proving notable Robdurbar 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
What Happens Now? I'm new at this and I created this article. I've noticed that Robdurbar was an ADMINISTRATOR for Wikipedia (since August 2006) has logged off (or posted a notice on his TALK page) that as of yesterday (March 3, 2007) he's no longer active with Wikipedia. So, what happens now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frommeyer ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Has been listed as a speedy, but I didn't think it quite fitted into that. To be honest with you, I don't know enough about law or otherwise to be sure enough that he isn't notable to speedy delete, if you see what I mean. Also, its worth noting that this is one of many articles written about the same family by the same user. So, nominating for deletion but I can be convinced otherwise. Robdurbar 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. It seems as though there are enough sources, and Frommeyer is right, for the most part. I would like to see more in the article about what exactly makes him notable, and more developed refeerences. Grand master ka 03:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Has been listed as a speedy, but I didn't think it quite fitted into that. To be honest with you, I don't know enough about law or otherwise to be sure enough that he isn't notable to speedy delete, if you see what I mean. Also, its worth noting that this is one of many articles written about the same family by the same user. So, nominating for deletion but I can be convinced otherwise. Robdurbar 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
NOTABLE I do not wish to waste anyone's time, including my own. Unfortunately, this RJC is my very first entry for any topic in Wikipedia - and I'm still going thru a big learning curve. However, it clearly seems to be that Roy Eaton story and RJC's involment certainly meets the "primary criterion" for inclusion in Wiki, if nothing else. If a 6-page story in the Saturday Evening Post and a 1-hour NBC television documentary on the Armstrong Circle Theatre series (aired from 13 years, 1950 to 1963) aren't reliable secondary sources about this topic, then I am wrong. Perhaps I just don't understand the "rules of the road" as defined by Wikipedia itself (see below): Frommeyer 13:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" [1] [2] or "attracting notice". [3] All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. These guidelines ensure that there is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about each topic.
A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent. The table to the right lists further guidelines which have been accepted, or are being considered, to more precisely demonstrate the notability criteria.
FYI - Robdurbar Left Wiki. If you look at his/her page, it appears that Robdurbar, who was an Administrator, has left the Wiki community on March 3rd. What happens now with this article. AND, what happens with my The Appraisal Foundation article which I totally re-wrote and referenced to the best of my ability. Will another Admin step in and take over automatically, or must someone in Wiki be notified? I'm just curious as to how this process works. Frommeyer 14:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn. I'll even do the merge requested by Polaron myself. Selket Talk 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable road, will be nominated with similar others. No claim of notability Selket Talk 00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because: same reason
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:09Z
I am re-creating this discussion for the deletion of the article latin metal for the following reasons:
Zouavman Le Zouave ( Talk to me! • O)))) 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Shred. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Entirely original research. WikiNew 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to someplace. Someone want to complete this please. Viridae Talk 11:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. A minor character in the Austin Powers canon. While major characters like Austin, Evil, Nigel etc are notable enough for their own articles, characters like Alotta Fagina are just jokes and aren't that notable. I am also nominating the following related pages because for similar reasons in that they aren't notable enough for their own articles. They're minor characters who serve to tell a joke.
CyberGhostface 00:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
References added
The result was speedy delete -- Wizardman 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
A non notable person (if real) and a likely hoax. Joanne Samuel was in Mad Max but she has her own article on WP, and there is no indication on WP or elsewhere that Grace Stephenson was her real name [ [5]] or that she is deceased. Contested PROD and CSD, and AFD tag has been deleted too. Slp1 00:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Denni. BryanG (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This page appears to be about a non-notable record label and one of the non-notable rappers on the label Carolfrog 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:45Z
Doesn't seem to be that notable of an actress. Is only one sentence long and is missing important information. CyberGhostface 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Seems to fail WP:WEB - according to [6] the only sites that have any information on this are like gamefaqs and "homestar runner wiki". Non-notable flash game. froth T 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to List of fictional medicines and drugs. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:45Z
Non-notable. Fictional drug that appeared in the TV show Scrubs. Barely worth merging into the Scrubs article as the character connected with Plomox (Julie Keaton) only appeared in 3 episodes. Croxley 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete for now. If Mai Time is ever created than of course she can be included there.-- Wizardman 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is little more than a short self-description of someone who is a TV show host (perhaps) in New Zealand and a red link to the name of that show. This is too little informational context for even a stub article entry. If "Mai Time" had an article (it doesn't), then this sort of information would belong there instead. Bumm13 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to Kekkaishi. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:46Z
Articles contains no references and fails to meet the WP:BIO standards Ozgod 01:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:33Z
Article about an online message board with no assertion of notability. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:BOLLOCKS and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual/internet guide. Hús ö nd 01:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:32Z
Non-notable Californian high school. Does not appear to meet the guidelines on Wikipedia:Schools. Almost nothing links to it. Also, has suffered a ridiculous amount of vandalism, presumably by its students; it would save a lot of trouble all round if it were deleted. Terraxos 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete: probable use of sock puppets,
SPAs,
WP:OR, lack of
reliable sources....
Cbrown1023
talk 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
Bad case of original research. Entire article appears to be based on personal observations of this street scam. Particularly bad is the Locations section, which is just a list of places and dates where various editors claim to have seen this happen. Croxley 01:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:31Z
Neologism. Article gives the impression that this term is an obscure neologism, and Google appears to support that. Croxley 01:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. However, Speaking of Animals, Unusual Occupations, and Popular Science Historic Film Series are copyright violations, so I am deleting them. Mango juice talk 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Note to next admin: I'm a bit worried about potential copyright infringement. do we have evidence of this use with permission? However, at the least, one of the two duplicates needs changed to a redirect. Adam Cuerden talk 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This AfD covers articles entered in an apparent PR spamming. They're all directly copied (with permission, it appears) from various pages at [8]. Shields Pictures itself doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. The site lists only these three movies as its products, and it's hard to find anything relevant information about the company without tripping over pictures of Brooke Shields. [9]
I've already reverted the blatant advertising at the Jerry Fairbanks [10] article. Some other content was woven into the Popular Science article. Mikeblas 01:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC
I am also nominating the following related pages because of their spammy, marketing content:
-- Mikeblas 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
*Merge I'm with DGG on that but I know I wouldn't want to do it. If I did it, I'd cut the info back to the most basic and important handful of facts. Currently, they're a morass of spammish details intended to be promotional, IMO.
Pigman
Talk to me 06:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
Sorry for starting on such a bad foot. I rewrote most of the text so that it is neutral in tone and unique to Wikipedia (an administrator helped clarify Wikipedia's copyright concerns to me, fully understandable). I have also done the same on "Popular Science Historic Film Series," "Unusual Occupations" and "Shields Picture, Inc." (some work on the "Jerry Fairbanks" article as well). I also did my best to cleanup the inventory lists and random links (as requested) on all three film series, and added many facts and dates. I have also I have done my best to de-PR them as well, and am now getting some help from the Wikipedia adoption program. Please let me know what else I can do to make these strong Wikipedia Articles. Once I get the OK, I'd like to add some photos (a 1943 picture of Bob Hope presenting Jerry Fairbanks with one of his Academy Awards, a photo of the Coat of Arms/Shield MGM prop from the 1952 film "The Bad and the Beautiful" that is referenced in the Shields Pictures, Inc. article, and a photo or two from each of the film libraries. Should I get approval of these pictures before I add them? Thanks for the help, CCBear 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable by any standard of which I'm aware, except for the assertion of use in an unspecified video (which kept me from a speedy nomination). No sources provided. RJASE1 Talk 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep as original nomination was on based on a reverted revision of the article, and upon WP:SNOW as not even the nominator has argued to delete. — Doug Bell talk 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Laundry list of examples of joke. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Google search proves type of joke exists but does not return any results conferring enough notability to warrant its own page. Merge to Joke under type of jokes. — Ocatecir Talk 02:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:30Z
No relevant Google hits to person's name other than this one, which appears to be a site that anyone who paints can be listed on. I suspect that it is a vanity/spam article. Bumm13 02:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Other than being yet another Sesame Street-themed product, the book in no way asserts encyclopedic notability; it is merely another picture book designed for very young children. Bumm13 03:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. -- Core desat 03:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Original research. As mentioned on the talk page, there's little to no evidence that this is anything other than idle chatter. VT hawkeye talk to me 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Mrld 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:28Z
Not notable, likely an autobiographical article. Cacophony 04:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted by Denni. BryanG (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is about an non-existent person it was made as a joke using Carmelo Anthony's information and changing some instances of him being male to female, the photo in the userbox is Beyonce who doesn't even play basketball - Dark Dragon Flame 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:28Z
Only Google hits (all 15 of them) are commercial links to purchase the product; closest thing to a reference are reviews at Amazon.com; item likely cannot be researched using traditional sources (books, periodicals, etc.) Bumm13 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge/redirect all to Kill Switch...Klick. Mango juice talk 14:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I previously speedily deleted this as A7, but it now asserts notability. These are articles about a musician, his band, and his record label. However, none appear to be notable per WP:MUSIC. Searching for all of these bring up forum posts and download pages, but nothing that would satisfy the notability guideline.
Also nominating:
-- Core desat 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I added two complimentary pages about my discography outside of Kill Switch...Klick and my Label and Film Company. These are also being considered for deletion. I was not using these as Vanity Pages. My own websites get thousands of visitors a day. I doubt anyone could get "more famous" from a listing on Wikipedia, I just want the facts about myself to be accurate. If people post about me on WIki I would apprectiate that. DIY. D.A.
Print citculation is 300,000 in the Chicago and Mid West. The article also explains my progression from musician to film maker. I also have the MTV pay stubs (through ASCAP) for material on the Made Show if need be, as well as an archive of Kill Switch...Klick press including cover mention on Outburn Magazine, full pages in A.P., The Stranger, The Rocket, Seattle Times, etc. Most of this was pre-internet. The reason to keep the pages separate, is- they are separate entities. I constructed the D.A. Sebasstian page, as Discography, Writting Credits for national magazines and Film Creds. These are a separate things from Kill Switch...Klick and people who want to know who the band is/was may or may not be interested in the Surf & Twang music I'm making now nor the articles I write for Ol' Skool Magazine or CK Deluxe. I have also progressed into a film maker. The film Hot Rod girls Save The World is getting a huge underground buzz and is due out in mid 2007. It seems jumbled to have all this under one heading. D.A. Sebasstian -- Sebasstian 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
-- Sebasstian 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
http://www.maximumink.com/articles.php?articleId=714
Press archives (all from hard copy that can be provided- not all available) http://www.go-kustom.com/kskpress01.html
In print for Go-Kustom with current iTunes links. http://www.go-kustom.com/catalog.html
D.A. Sebasstian movie links http://www.go-kustom.com/hotrodgirlssavetheworld.html
What else do you need?
The links to my web pages are archives of previously non-web material (print magazines). I offered to mail you hard copies. I save this stuff for my kids. Did you look at the links? This is riduculous. -- Sebasstian 04:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
BTW how long has the Kill Switch...Klick article been up? Who originally created it? I had never heard of Wikipedia until a year or so ago- I was Googling Kill Switch...Klick to quell rumors that we broke up- and Wiki came up. I checked the page and there was quite a few bit of mis-information. I found that I could correct the info. Later I heard a piece on NPR about the Wiki experiments in Encylopedic information and it made sense. Why wasn't the Kill Switch...Klick article put up for deletion a year ago? Why didn't anyone delete it a year ago? It's virtually the same, except for a few corrections. -- Sebasstian 04:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
-- Sebasstian 06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Please check this link and look at the numbers. http://uncutvideo.aol.com/users/dasebasstian/0a5ef121dcedf7bbe330dbc3c043c0e9?index=2 -- Sebasstian 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Dark Gravity 08:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
“Thanks bro. I try. I tried arguing with Wiki about it. Doesn't look good. They said because I amended the page (for some info corrections) that it's a conflict of interest or "COI." I had added a D.A. Sebasstian page (as a CD and writers list- I also write for CK Deluxe and Ol Skool Rodz Magazines once in awhile) and one for my label (Go-Kustom Rekords) with the intent of taking that info off of the KsK pages, keeping the KsK page purely about the band, and not me or the label. Makes sense to me, but not to Wiki. They say that all the pages should be condensed or deleted. If they condense the three pages- my understanding is they will nix the Kill Switch...Klick page and put it all under my name. I don't want this as KsK has/had other members and has a life of it's own- plus there are many links back to that page from other "industrial and electronic" Wiki pages. I tried forwarding links from my web site, where I had archived the print media (as proof that all three entities - KsK, D.A. Sebasstian & Go-Kustom Rekords had separate magazine and newspaper articles, but they said that was not acceptable because I had collected them on my site (another COI). These articles were in magazines that do not put their content on the web. I also offered to send hard copies for review. They would not address that...“ -- Sebasstian 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Daniel- Honestly I am not taking it personally. Ive been in the media business since the 1980's so I have a thick skin. I've made my money and made my mark and been lucky enough to have complete artistic freedom. My whole argument is to make an information flow relevent to the Article's subject title. Something that Wiki sometiems lacks (but obviously strives for). I saw the Kill Switch...Klick Article becoming an "achivements of D.A. Sebasstian Article." I didn't think that was fair to Mike Ditmore and Jeremy Moss and others who have worked in KsK. After the other two pages were established (Go-Kustom Rekords and D.A. Sebasstian) I had planned on editing out the Go-Kustom Rekords info and D.A. Sebasstian info and keep it about the band. To me it was a design issue. The links I had provided on my site were for the D.A. Sebasstian citations in Seattle Magazine, Fangoria Magazine, Hemmings Motor News, etc. National press. If as an editing decision- you guys decided to condense, I would rather you just delete the D.A. Sebasstian Article and Go-Kustom Rekords. There is already too much info about me in the KsK Article. It has become convoluted. Also I would not delete the Ol' Skool Rodz or CK Deluxe pages. You can go down to any (and I mean any) store and buy those magazines. They are a Godsend to Kustom Kulture and a true resource. The fact that I have written an article or two in the magazines does not make it a COI. I gain nothing by their inclusion on WIki. -- Sebasstian 17:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
My opinion is that it should remain as is. All the info is current and for the most part acurate. I don't feel there is a conflict of interest at all. You have a person who has projects that have bled into each other. Hope you can work it out.
To chime in- Daniel the D.A. Sebasstian page is only a list. So no real writing was involved as a COI. One of the ways to avert a COI is by Disclosure- and I have been very forth wright. Personally I would say 90 percent (unverified number) of ALL musicians Articles On Wiki are created by The Band, Artists, Record Label or Publiscists on Wiki. I'm sure fans add to the pages or add articles on older obscure bands all the time, but the level of information on most is beyond what the average fan could ever know. I have read dozens of Band Articles that look exactly like press releases. BTW If you delete the pages and do a redirect (as you stated above- and yes I could live with that) and then a fan or interested party tries putting the D.A. page back up again, will it stand or be deleted? I am an extremely honest person (verifiable) and would not try this under an anonymous log in. However word is getting out about this and quite a few people are very pissed (very verifiable). Also if anyone makes a comment please sign you name. -- Sebasstian 22:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The other things is- is it possible to ammend the COI guidelines? Who would I talk to about this?-- Sebasstian 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
-- Sebasstian 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
-- Sebasstian 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks. If your looking for notoriety for Go-Kustom, try typing the word "Kustom" in Google. I think it comes up in the top 10-13. Given all the kustom kulture and car websites with the word "kustom" in them, that is mind boggling (or googling). -- Sebasstian 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Actually we come up 10 on Google out of over 2,000,000 entries! Is that note worthy or not worthy? -- Sebasstian 01:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. – Steel 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:WEB Samw 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
* NOTE: This debate has been included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/AfD. John Reaves (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect to Coral Springs High School. —dgies t c 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
contested PROD for high school marching band. merge & redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permian High School Band Cornell Rockey 04:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Special education. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:27Z
As per the first AfD back in 2005, this is an unsourced dicdef, which violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As such, and just like the result of the original AfD, I'd recommend deleting the content and placing a {{wi}} tag to link to wiktionary, which is a dictionary. Since that debate was forever ago, it seems like it's appropriate to revisit. Perhaps someone is aware of some verifiable use that would expand the article beyond a mere definition? -- Scientizzle 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Grandmasterka [15]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. worthawholebean talk contribs 04:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:27Z
A game that exists only in beta form. No assertion of notability. No external sites link to the project page.
[16]. It's not even clear if copyright for the Pokemon franchise has been obtained. Prod, contested by author, without explanation.
eaolson 04:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete, fails WP:CORP. NawlinWiki 02:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Meets none of the WP:CORP requirements. worthawholebean talk contribs 04:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:25Z
Should be deleted per WP:MUSIC, non-notable band Joebengo 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Irishguy [17]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Not Notable / Vanity BankingBum 05:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability, possible G11 (Advertisement)? Also does not have any citations. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Steel 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
First of all, I would like to mention that this article has been pointed out to me by Kneale. Before you post your recommendations in this discussion, please send some kind words to him, who seems to have left Wikipedia without warning.
I am copying some of my own comments to above user here:
Jimmy Urine is not notable according to Wikipedia standards. He violates WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO.
After a brief google search on "Little Jimmy Urine", you can see that the web pages already violate WP:RS, since some of those pages are interviews and reviews, sources that are biased in favor of Little Jimmy Urine, thus violating WP:NPOV. Also, a quote from WP:MUSIC states:
Clearly, the Little Jimmy Urine article cannot be supported by such web sites, since the interviews involve Jimmy Urine talking about himself, giving us biased information for the article in question.
The guideline on notability requires that:
I did a broader google search on "Jimmy Urine". Do you see how only 3 web pages on "Jimmy Urine" appear? Afterwards, a search on "Mindless Self Indulgence" continues. This tells me that Jimmy Urine is only notable because of his role in Mindless Self Indulgence. If he has any notability outside of MSI, then that might warrant an article. In addition, I did a search on my school's Proquest Platinum database, and there was only 1 periodical that mentioned Jimmy Urine's name, and in passing. That's the trouble with this Wikipedia article. Sources on this guy only mention him in passing. The main subject is MSI.
Look at this version (current during the time I post this message), and you will see that the article is not backed up by sources. It could potentially be filled with WP:OR. The article does not WP:CITE any reliabe sources (RS) (or any sources for that matter).
The article also violates WP:LIVING and WP:V.
the article should be merged with the mindless self indulgence article
Therefore, I request that this article be deleted. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 20:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- Core desat 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Proceedual nomination for deletion as begun by an IP user. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 23:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I am puzzled by this entry. If I understand right, an anonymous editor has nominated this article for deletion, but has indicated no grounds for the proposal. It is hard to see why an article on a topic harped upon on several Web sites should be excluded from Wikipedia. Lima 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
*Delete per
WP:V, some rumor on a few websites isn't encyclopedic. --
Kendrick7
talk 07:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
At last a reason is proposed. However, the websites present the oath not as a rumour, but as a fact. Just look up the sites mentioned in the article. It is also published, as fact, in at least one fairly widely read book. One of the websites is that of the somewhat important Society of St. Pius X. Another, to which Wikipedia does not allow links (but whose name includes "fisheaters"), no longer gives the oath as an undoubted fact, but it still says: "You should be familiar with the above form of the oath because it is often seen in traditionalist circles." "Often seen in traditionalist circles" - surely a very good reason why Wikipedia should speak of it. Lima 09:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Kendrick has gone too far, making unilateral changes in complete disregard of others, indeed against the opposition of others and without the support of even one other person. Now he has gone further: inventing pages that claim that "the Papal Oath" can mean various other things. Can he quote a single source outside of Wikipedia that says the profession of faith found in the Liber Diurnus is called "the Papal Oath"? ...
I trust I do have support for moving the article this discussion is about to "The Papal Oath". This is unambiguous: no papal oath other than the one attributed to the Popes from Agatho to Paul VI is known as "the Papal Oath". It is NPOV, while "Papal Oath (Traditionalist Catholic)" contradicts the POV of those Traditionalist Catholics who claim that the text in question is not just a Traditionalist Catholic Papal Oath, but a genuine oath actually taken by the Popes.
The question of keeping or not keeping the article has been settled long ago, and there was no real need to continue that discussion. The discussion now is on the name of the article that we are keeping. Do we support the move to "The Papal Oath"?
The result was keep.-- Wizardman 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
A rambling article about a non-notable video game that was never finished or released. — ptk✰ fgs 05:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:46, 5 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}} . |
Non-notable fancruft Vicarious 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I've been watching this page for a while. A google seach for "speak no more war hungary" only returns a youtube page, the sources quoted are a Hungarian myspace-type page and youtube. Can anyone confirm this is legitimate and/or notable ? Travelbird 06:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I disagree, the source quoted is not a "myspace-type" page at all, but a Hungarian celebrity page which includes information about Tom Deak, that is featured in the article such as his name and birthday, and information about the song, and that it was a sell-published release. The other source are from a forum post, by a hungarian, but is relied upon for only a few facts in the article, such as his unemployment and bankruptcy. the information is cited as alleged and according to some sources, and is not stated as blanket fact. I don't see why an extrnal link to the ytube viral video is inapprioprate either. also, The page is obviosly being worked on, and is not yet complete. secondly, your major complaint seems to be the sources, this seems strange to me considering thousands of wikipedia articles which lack any kind of source, but ar not immediatly or ever put up for deletion. If your questioning whether the subject is legitmate, I think this viral video star deserves a wikipedia entry, should we also delete zladko's page also? I seriosly question the legitmacy of this deletion request. Opetyan— Opetyan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I second Opetyan's comments. The call for deletion is unjustified, especially for such an incipient article. If this article is considered up for deletion, you would also have to explain why most other viral phenomenon pages on wikipedia (like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlad) are still up. The fact that the formally obscure video originated in Hungary doesn't help you out much on a google search. If anything, this article should be marked for clean up; the notion of deletion is just silly. Rikoozik — Rikoozik ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Yes, I am the creator of this article. That is not an argument against, and I hope you are not implying its use as such. And yes, I haven't done much aside from this, but I want this article to be as complete as it can possibly be from the small amount of information available online. And I'm hoping that now that the page exists, someone from Hungary is able to add more information as the majority of the information is in Hungarian. Rikoozik
a effort seems to have been made to try and discredit the legitmacy of the article by critizing me and also Rikoozik. stating we are a single purpose user, etc. while I don't know about Rizoozik, I have personally annonymously been contributing to wikipedia for a few years already, and decided to become a memeber specifically because of this article. I look forward to contributing to other articles in the future, and don't indent to push any agenda, as suggested. back to dealing with the article, and not user critisism, I remember seeing a speak the hungarian rapper article as a requested article. Opetyan
I have already answered allegations that I am a single purpose user with a hidden agenda, that is not true, and shouldn't be used as a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the article. I don't know why this was brought up again. I want to point out that there are hundreds of wikipedia articles with little or no sources, and they are all not up for deletion, but marked with "citiation needed" or "reference needed". It least give Rikozzik and myself some time to come up with what newspaper or magazine articles, if hungarian celebrity websites are not considered a credible source (for some reason). again, I find myself in a very funny situation having to defend Speak. P.S aren't photographes primary sources? their used in the article to show his name is "Tom Deak" Opetyan
When you decide to remove a section of the article, you want to post this in the dicussion section? 68.122.222.190 01:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:22Z
The article does not meet the requirements of WP:BAND. speedy tag was removed. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Bumping from speedy; this is a really bad idea for listcruft. But not patent nonsense. Awyong J. M. Salleh 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Categorisation would seem to me best research tool.
I was overruled and people suggested it be listified. I find the subject fascinating - far more than a list of billionaires (and I have growing sympathy with the person who created "people who have been pied" - I wish I hadn't voted to delete it now!) There is pathos, redemption, revenge and hubris in these stories. The articles on wikipedia don't always reflect this aspect of a person's life and i would either like to flesh this out within the articles or do some pen pictures on this list which deal with it (rather than the artistic or other career of the subject). Johnnybriggs 07:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a private airfield, which seems to be little more than a long piece of grass, and seems to be one of many similar airfields in existance. I don't know much about private airfields but I would venture that this is not notable. Also, the creator of this article, Haz kk ( talk · contribs), also created Atlantic International Airways ( AfD discussion), which was deleted as unverifiable (possible hoax). — Quarl ( talk) 2007-02-26 07:56Z
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Borderline advertisement, although not too gushing. Created by someone from the company that makes it. As I wade through the Google results for SCInterface, they mostly seem to be the company's own promotional material. (And some of them are other uses of the name "SCInterface.") Anyone familiar with game server technology want to comment on the notability of this product? FreplySpang 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The article title is a neologism, a google search for "Newark Airport Interchange" yields 14 unique results, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Most of the article is original research; any material that would be salvageable for merge is already in the articles on the respective highways. And for the icing on the cake, not that it matters, but the original author and only major contributor is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet/vandal. NORTH talk 08:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
You better god dam keep it! I 512theking, created this article. listen to my little brother JohnnyAlbert10, I like this article and if you guys delete it i will vandalize wikipedia like i did in the good old days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.147.5.154 ( talk • contribs)
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
NN Nick Catalano contrib talk 08:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g4, repost, not significantly different from first version. NawlinWiki 15:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ATT only other sources I could find were sponsor press pages and article cites no sources. Non-notable. Notability attempts to be established by showing a bucket load of online league wins but no "pro" wins. BJ Talk 09:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - the topic has not been published in peer-reviewed journals and does not appear to have any support beyond that of its creator. Richardcavell 01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: proposed calendar with no sign of verifiable references from reliable sources -- Pak21 09:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - The subject of this article does not appear to have any widespread notability or support beyond that given by its creator. If it appears in academic literature then we might reconsider. - Richardcavell 01:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The result was Delete - all these calendars are not verifiable, are not the subject of any noteworthy academic debate, and have no support beyond that of their creators. - Richardcavell 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 03:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The list is a loose association of reality show winners by program. Even if the list was expanded to include all winners of all reality TV series (not just "the most popular, big budget, ongoing North American Reality TV series" as of this writing), I don't see how that would be valuable. An example: how would a winner of Survivor compare with a winner of Project Runway? In comparison, a list of all game show winners would really appear as being loosely associated; although a list with a limited criterion, as with American game show winnings records, would have some meaning. There is also an existing Category:Reality show winners, but I am not necessarily nominating for that reason. Tinlinkin 09:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 12:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
disputed PROD for NN-magazine delete Cornell Rockey 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rlevse 02:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
failure to meet notability guidelines Mjp202 19:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:21Z
Not notable enough for an article, was only 1 evening event. Don't see anywhere it should be merged into either. Scot t 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
An indiscriminate, directory-like list of crew members (without actors) that reads like it's from IMDB. Tinlinkin 09:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Crackpot without independent sources, most known for his appearances in a few films, most notably
What the bleep do we know. He is already discussed in the articles on the films, which, since the films have sufficient reliable and reputable sources written about them, satisfy NPOV. However, there aren't sufficient sources to have an NPOV article on Wolf, and as can be seen, the article currently uses only his website and the WTBDWK website as sources. For a person whose views on physics fundamentally conflict with those of the scientific community, as explained in the WTBDWK article, these sources are not sufficient.
Philosophus
T 09:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC) -- see response below
reply
The result was Keep - At time of nomination, lacked sources, but three independent reliable sources have been added establishing notability in their market. —dgies t c 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable radio show - lacks multiple features in independent reliable sources. Google turns up 40 unique hits [30] amoung them a NUVO's Best of Indy 2003 - #1 in "Best morning radio show", [31] but other results are trivial mentions of the show. Searching for "Smiley Morning Show" nets 179 unique results but without more relevance. [32] Awyong J. M. Salleh 15:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Three more IP addresses on the article's talk page seem to be "Keep" votes. Would these count? (Is there a WP policy against it?) David 04:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. As a rationale was requested, the arguments that this is simply a directory or definition were appropriately addressed, and it was shown that this is a viable subject for a sourced encyclopedia article, and can include information beyond that which would be appropriate for a dictionary. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:WINAD. This is the last given name list remaining on Wikipedia. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a particular country (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. There is strong precedent for this kind of deletion; recently, all lists of given names have been moved to Wiktionary and deleted, please see the list of discussions below.
Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit· t 10:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Rlevse 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Ill-defined, POV, unencyclopaedic and ummaintainable list. Fails against many parts of WP:NOT Nuttah68 10:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
lets include the rest of the Films by genre list. The Funny animal list is supposed to serve the same purpose as the examples listed.
The result was speedy deleted by TexasAndroid [33]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Seems to only be a INSTALL doc for installing Debian on a Jornada. :: ZJH ( T C E) 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Right just delete this for now and i'll contact Debian Ports,HpcFactor and Handhelds.org and ask them to do a Distro review, then i'll repost the Info assuming these are reliable sources for you,I will also ask kristoffer@jlime.com the Current Jornada Linux Kernel Maintainer at www.jlime.com to do a review of the Jornada Linux Kernel running on 720 Degrees Debian but he mabey a bit biased towards his own distro :P
The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm unable to find any English sources about this publication, and the original author now seems intent on either blanking the article or filling it with nonsense. -- Onorem 11:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a product guide, nor the yellow pages. Both pages suffer from lack of sourcing, tend to attract excessive external links, and are basically promotion for a variety of brands, many of which are not particularly notable. >Radiant< 12:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages:
Talk:List_of_screen_recording_software#Pricing_Information
The result was speedy delete, misspelled dictionary definition. Kusma (討論) 11:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
No content bar a dictionary type definition Agathoclea 12:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Google search for Basong [43] is limited while a majority of them are unrelated to the subject. A more restrictive search [44] should reveal the non-notability of subject. Delete Awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy __earth ( Talk) 12:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Kick off Survivor. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I will re-nominate this NN Survivor contestant who hasnt done anything since leaving the show. Lack of notable secondary references outside game show, A quick google search (minus Wikipedia results) turns up around 1,000 results but most are forum posts from the Survivor game show, plus a few on her official website. I'm sure we dont create pages on losing game show contestants on shows such as Jeopardy or Deal or No Deal because they've been on a game show. (well except for the obvious notable celebrities on the special editions). -- Arnzy ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. -- Luigi30 ( Taλk) 17:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep; inconclusive as to whether this need to be merged or not, but no one aside the nom is asking for deletion. The need to merge, if any, should be talked through on article talk page(s), but not in this venue. -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is identical to at least other 4 articles on the philosophical paradigm of simulated reality. only this one not even trying to add anything new, written in a child like way and repeat even it self. it could link to the Dream_argument or evil demon. yet I believe it is completely redundant.
The result was Merged with Cornell Green (offensive tackle). NawlinWiki 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Cornell D. Green does not appear to exist, at least according to ESPN and google. I suppose I could be wrong... Grung0r 12:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:19Z
DELETE --
Not very notable. The notability of National Spelling Bee winners is debatable, but definitely not 2nd place spellers. See ongoing discussion @ Samir Patel under Articles for deletion. Onyx the hero 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure about our guidelines for web forums - it claims 24,000 members, which is a lot. Montchav 11:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by TexasAndroid [50]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Kawasaki, or is this non-notable? Montchav 11:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is a POV fork for Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
What is interesting, there are more admissions of khachkars being destroyed by Armenians themselves, especially around their capital of Yerevan -- for example, at this specialized khachkar website - [52]
"Endangered Khachkars in Armenia and Artsakh It is particularly tragic that khachkars are also endangered in Armenia and Artsakh. They are disappearing, being damaged or moved. Most endangered are the old khachkar fields located near today’s graveyards, where khachkars are being eradicated for the creation of new burial space. The “crown of thorns” belongs to the khachkar field in Arinch near Yerevan. The situation is threatening in Noratus as well, where new burials are encroaching upon the khachkar field from at least three sides. The old graveyard of Areni is in almost the same situation. The movement of khachkars voluntarily by different individuals is a widespread practice. In some cases this is done to allegedly create a new holy place, for example, the case of Karmir Dalakner of Gegharquniq region where the khachkar was brought from Karvachar. Another case of moved khachkars is due to the decoration of new offices and especially entertainment establishments, as for example in the Vank village in Karabakh. The third and the most condemning practice is when khachkars are merely disappearing to decorate individual yards and houses. Khachkars are being damaged also by believers, worshipers and casual visitors, who light candles on them or write their names on them or engage in rituals that are damaging the carvings." See gallery of photos here - [53]
Moreover, the destruction of cultural heritage (or Cultural Genocide, as some Armenians dubbed it) in Armenia, like elsewhere, has reached dangerous proportions and led to many protests both in press and in streets -- [54], [55], [56], and [57]
Hence, if the Armenian and pro-Armenian view on destruction of khachkars by allegedly Azerbaijanis and allegedly in Naxcivan is to be included, then a contrarian view should be included too -- not just Azerbaijan's denial of wrongdoing by the government, but Armenians' own admission of breaking, destroying and otherwise mishandling their own khachkars on their own territory. -- AdilBaguirov 13:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep This is not a POV fork, if anything it's more favorable towards the Azerbaijan postion than the article it's claimed to be a fork of. Article is sourced. Nominator in his 13:50 post has stated a goal of purging wikipedia of edits he disagrees with. Edward321 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong KeepThe article describes intentional destruction with purposeful aim of destruction of a nations heritage - cultural genocide. The destruction of 19th century Yerevan is done with the AIM of development and through corruption, etc ... Example of neglect and corruption rather than attempt by Armenians to eradicate their own history. Destruction might be comprable to what happened in grand central station. ( Hetoum 07:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)) reply
The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense neologism, see WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Total and utter nonsense -- SockpuppetSamuelson
The result was keep, only because there's no article that we can merge it to.-- Wizardman 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This minor character in The O.C. only appeared briefly in one episode and I believe is not notable enough to warrant her own article. She can be mentioned in the Cohen family articles, but I feel that this character is not notable enough for an article of her own. Too little has happened in regards to this character and she has had very little impact on the series. Sillygostly 11:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails
WP:WEB in all aspects, inside joke filled page, etc.
ElbridgeGerry 00:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was KEEP but RENAME to Dannielynn Marshall Stern paternity case. The situation is notable, the person is not. Herostratus 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, moving to AFD instead. No opinion. A ecis Brievenbus 14:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:16Z
Article appears to be unnecessary listcruft (being as real names are on every single wrestler article). Also, the article itself says it may may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness as there are too many wrestlers to reasonably add to this article This creates certainty of endless cruft if article was maintained. Any cross-referencing impossible as gimmick names are listed seperately. The article, in addition, lists no references. Suriel1981 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, fails WP:BAND. NawlinWiki 16:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability. Sounds like someone's garage band EvilOverlordX 15:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by TexasAndroid [59]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
NN actress. This was proded and the tag was removed with no improvement. Possibly vanity. Article makes no claims of notability. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was previously nominated for deletion on January 13, and the result of the discussion was "no consensus." I believe that this character is insufficiently notable to have its own page. Delete and then semi-redirect (i.e., having a link to King Kong from Jimmy). -- Nlu ( talk) 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Gnan garra 01:28, 7 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}} . |
Fails WP:WEB for lack of multiple reliable substantial third-party coverage. Currently protected apparently due to editwarring about whether a reference to a site administrator having allegedly commited a crime should be included. That text (see history) contains a reference to a newspaper story about that person's arrest; however the website is only mentioned in passing there. Sandstein 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep. With a website the size of this one, it is very difficult to find "third party" sources that are not directly involved (as I am). It appears that the push for deletion is coming from a (?)small group of former or disaffected members. The simple truth is that Railpage is the first stop for almost everyone seeking information about Australian railways, and this is reason enough for keeping the entry live. Latrodectus 14:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. Correction, I think one arbitrator disagreed with the subject, the other approached it from a neutral point of view and locked discussion with the subject material in place.
The incident was newsworthy being printed in an article in the Herald Sun. His actions were never properly explained, and there were calls for him to be removed at the time. crawford+busted
I'll again use the comparision, if an leading individual of a company that featured an article here on Wikipedia was accused or convicted of a crime associated with his role at the company, the company of course would not condone the crime, but mention of that accused actions (even if found not guilty) if it was recorded in the mainstream printed media and the boards subsequent refusal to sack or reprimand the individual or publicly distance itself would surely rate a mention within that wikipedia article on that company.
Even if some people find mentioning his name objectional, It is my opinion that there should be some mention of this "small" "social controversy". Wikipedia has allowed mention the mention of "controversies" elsewhere - see Post-match "handbag incident". Super_14_Final.
I fear there will never be any consensus to any proposed changes even if there is only just a passing mention in the article of the "incident".
I did propose Arbitration, however others have proposed for reasons already indicated (uncited material, etc) that the article is a candiate for deletion.
Tezza1 20:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Note: At this point I have semiprotected this AfD due to the influx of unhelpful comments by new and anonymous users. Sandstein 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Transwiki -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Clearly a neologism, no notability. Violates
WP:NEO and
WP:NOTE.
Sr13 (
T|
C) 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
Sorry for the confusion...changing nomination. Clearly a dicdef, fails WP:WINAD. Sr13 ( T| C) 05:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Only one article links here, looks like just a simple press writeup. -- Vossanova o< 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:15Z
Not notable autobiographical musician article. Fails WP:MUSIC Selket Talk 18:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NN radio announcer (fails WP:BIO). Only one of the four references below mentions Nottage. The one reference only trivially mentions him. WP:PROD contested. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Term only used by opponents of the well-accepted medical concept that cholesterol plays an important role in the development of atherosclerosis. Should not have its own page. If suitable for merge at all, we could try The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, which represents these "critics". JFW | T@lk 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Nothing links here, looks like advertising. -- Vossanova o< 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Notable event, yes, but I question the notability of this individual. Furthermore, this seems like an attack piece rather than an encyclopedia article. kingboyk 19:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:12Z
Vanity article. Author/subject claims to have worked with John Lennon, but I can't find any independent confirmation with Google of this association with Lennon, nor of its notability. (For instance, it's possible he did work with Lennon, but only as a session musician, which would not make him notable.) Would appreciate opinions of Wikipedians with expertise in pop music. Psychonaut 19:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every appearance in every medium of not only a katana, but of any sword or sword-like weapon that in the opinion of an editor resembles a katana or may have been inspired by a katana. No sources to back up the inclusion of any of the items. Note that the content was split from Katana initially and so should not be merged back to that article per the desires of the editors who maintain that page. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semtex in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture. Otto4711 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - for all the same reasons that Category:Fictional narcissists was deleted. The list is hopelessly subjective and requires editors to impose their POV in deciding who to list and who not to. The introduction to the article is a great indicator of why it should be deleted: "This article comprises a list of fictional characters who may be consider[ed] to be narcissists." Considered by whom, under what criteria? The list is indiscriminate and constitutes an improper loose association based on a character trait that the members may or may not share in common according to the interpretation of any particular editor. And for good measure, no sources, reliable or otherwise. Otto4711 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect. Bucketsofg 02:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail the Wikipedia:Notability (music) tests. Psychonaut 20:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Not sure where this previous AfD is. –
Steel 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
Unreleased first album by an relatively unknown artist. If it comes out and is a hit, maybe. Richfife 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
nn wrestling personality, had brief wrestling managing career, wrote 2 modestly selling (among wrestling fans, not mainstream) books, and has website WrestleCrap with current alexa of 142,115. The only independent review I can find outside of wrestling websites is from an NYC tabloid. See afd for Scott Keith for precedent, he is more published than RD. Booshakla 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted under criterion A7 by Irishguy with reason (A7). Kyra ~(talk) 11:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Has twice been prodded. Dubious notability. Autobiography / advert (evidence here). -- RHaworth 21:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. While only the nominator and one other user have expressly advocated deletion (a third user has all but done so), the fact that the calls of "Do Not Delete" are made by anons and there are no sources provided beyond a vague "interview about this" tips the balance BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
This sounds like a hoax to me, with no sources, and several "track names" critiquing what Mr. Combs has been up to (see "Name Change," "Press Rewind," "Back Then, but Right Now," and "Mase on My Dick") Strong delete. Tom Danson 21:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
This was confirmed yesterday by Terrence and Rocsi on BET's 106th and Park. It's real. Diddy is just poking fun at himself.
I saw Diddy give an interview about this on the red carpet.
The result was Merge and redirect to Apex, North Carolina. —dgies t c 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neighborhood; it's not even an entire town. Seems to be too small to stand any chance of proving notability. Veinor (talk to me) 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The user/s who've spent ages making the page would have been well-served spending ages establishing notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable football (soccer) club; WP:CORP states that only clubs in the top ten levels of the English football league system are considered inherently notable. No other grounds for notability have been stated in the article.
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable sowing method: 202 ghits, most of which do not actually refer to the practice. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise new scientific concepts. Part Deux 22:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-league English football club that falls several levels below currently accepted criteria (i.e. playing at Level 10 or above) for notability fchd 22:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is unsourced and unverified speculation. Can find no indication on the news archives for the Black Eyed Peas website of an upcoming album, let alone one by this title. The only source provided is this article on Billboard.com, which only verifies the first paragraph of the article, and is the only verifiable source cited in the article. Some of it is written as outright speculation, and at least a quarter of the article is about stuff unrelated to the article.
The result was withdrawn, appears notable. Part Deux 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable corp: only 200 ghits by my count (I know that's not a reason, but it doesn't appear notable anyway) Part Deux 23:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. BJ Talk 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears on the surface to be an neologism. neon white talk 23:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Originally tagged for speedy deletion, but declined by Proto. Tagger requested that this be sent to AfD if speedy was declined, so here we are. I cast no vote. – Steel 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:11Z
No hits on Google for any of the main subjects of the article (except Royal Tarlair). The youtube video looks like a fake and the whole article appears to be a hoax. Sorry if I'm spoiling someone's fun, but... Smalljim 23:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:10Z
Article is an advertisement for a non-notable unsourced company. Masterpedia 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Rlevse 19:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
law group, listed for a speedy. I doubt its notable, but I don't know enough about law to be sure. Delete unless sources are added proving notable Robdurbar 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
What Happens Now? I'm new at this and I created this article. I've noticed that Robdurbar was an ADMINISTRATOR for Wikipedia (since August 2006) has logged off (or posted a notice on his TALK page) that as of yesterday (March 3, 2007) he's no longer active with Wikipedia. So, what happens now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frommeyer ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Has been listed as a speedy, but I didn't think it quite fitted into that. To be honest with you, I don't know enough about law or otherwise to be sure enough that he isn't notable to speedy delete, if you see what I mean. Also, its worth noting that this is one of many articles written about the same family by the same user. So, nominating for deletion but I can be convinced otherwise. Robdurbar 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. It seems as though there are enough sources, and Frommeyer is right, for the most part. I would like to see more in the article about what exactly makes him notable, and more developed refeerences. Grand master ka 03:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Has been listed as a speedy, but I didn't think it quite fitted into that. To be honest with you, I don't know enough about law or otherwise to be sure enough that he isn't notable to speedy delete, if you see what I mean. Also, its worth noting that this is one of many articles written about the same family by the same user. So, nominating for deletion but I can be convinced otherwise. Robdurbar 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply
NOTABLE I do not wish to waste anyone's time, including my own. Unfortunately, this RJC is my very first entry for any topic in Wikipedia - and I'm still going thru a big learning curve. However, it clearly seems to be that Roy Eaton story and RJC's involment certainly meets the "primary criterion" for inclusion in Wiki, if nothing else. If a 6-page story in the Saturday Evening Post and a 1-hour NBC television documentary on the Armstrong Circle Theatre series (aired from 13 years, 1950 to 1963) aren't reliable secondary sources about this topic, then I am wrong. Perhaps I just don't understand the "rules of the road" as defined by Wikipedia itself (see below): Frommeyer 13:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" [1] [2] or "attracting notice". [3] All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. These guidelines ensure that there is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about each topic.
A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent. The table to the right lists further guidelines which have been accepted, or are being considered, to more precisely demonstrate the notability criteria.
FYI - Robdurbar Left Wiki. If you look at his/her page, it appears that Robdurbar, who was an Administrator, has left the Wiki community on March 3rd. What happens now with this article. AND, what happens with my The Appraisal Foundation article which I totally re-wrote and referenced to the best of my ability. Will another Admin step in and take over automatically, or must someone in Wiki be notified? I'm just curious as to how this process works. Frommeyer 14:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn. I'll even do the merge requested by Polaron myself. Selket Talk 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable road, will be nominated with similar others. No claim of notability Selket Talk 00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because: same reason
The result was Delete. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-03-03 07:09Z
I am re-creating this discussion for the deletion of the article latin metal for the following reasons:
Zouavman Le Zouave ( Talk to me! • O)))) 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC) reply