The result was Speedy delete, a7 - group with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- WP:OR, we don't take original work. Also seems to fail notablility requirements. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Glen 15:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this website satisfies WP:WEB. Scobell302 01:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Glen 15:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is nn. In addition, the article alleges without viewable citations that the person was a child molester and violates WP:WEASEL while doing so ("While in Mountshannon it is believed McNamara sexually abused Brendan O'Donnell...") If the subject was alive, this article would be a libel suit waiting to happen. Aaron 00:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mangojuicetalk 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before all of these are created, we should probably figure out whether annual charts are notable and not copyrighted. (The charts for 2005 hold the copyright notice © 2006 VNU eMedia Inc. All rights reserved., terms of use here). This AfD does not include the entry on Radio & Records itself, which should be notable, but all annual charts created as subpages. ~ trialsanderrors 07:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Glen 15:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs, especially political ones, are a dime a dozen. I don't see what makes this particular one notable. Full disclosure: I prodded this for much the same reason and the tag was removed by the editor with nothing else added. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted per G4 and A7. Konstable 06:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This former A7 speedy article fails WP:BIO. I'm taking this to AfD due to its recreation. The 6 search results for the subject's name have nothing to do with the subject matter of the article. [4] Erechtheus 00:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Glen 15:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This fellow is a writer for the wrestling website Online Onslaught (which, I note, doesn't have an article, though its creator Rick Scaia oddly enough does), and is a former disc jockey, according to the article. There are approximately 1270 Google hits for "Matthew Hocking"[5] and six for "Matthew Hocking" Canadian Bulldog[6], as he's known. I don't think writing for a couple of wrestling websites now and again is notability enough for an article. Was deprodded without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 00:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. - Glen 15:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
recreation of previously deleted article, prod removed with no explanation. Does not provide any independent evidence for notability. --Peta 01:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy delete per CSD G4. Already tagged. --Dennisthe2 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!
The result was speedy keep per the nomination being withdrawn by the nominator. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This information is better served by an existing category.Dlohcierekim 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Petros471 12:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this person meets WP:BIO. There are only 59 ghits for " 'James Doyle' Clonard " [11], and roughly half of those refer to different individuals. Most of the direct ghits are from local Irish news sources about the subject's current trial. Suggest deletion or merging into The Ferns Report. Aaron 01:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Glen 15:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of potentially unlimited size that would include every form of firearm ever in a film, from blunderbuss and muskets to modern machine guns, with a sub-list of each film said firearm appeared in. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Allen3 talk 01:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Glen 15:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of potentially unlimited size that would include every form of firearm ever in a video game, from blunderbuss and muskets to modern machine guns, with a sub-list of each video game said firearm appeared in. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Allen3 talk 01:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wickethewok 18:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Glen 15:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of links to forums. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. User logged in long enough to contribute this list (Dec 2004) and apparently hasn't been back. Elf | Talk 01:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDILY REDIRECTED. This is dupe content, but it has been merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this page has been nominated for deletion several times. I did some research and found that this information is already included in Adolf Hitler's medical health -- Stubbleboy 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --- Glen 08:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Organization that does not assert notability. Also appears to be unverifiable Canadian-Bacon t c e 01:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voting in the Board election will end in less than two days.
The result was no consensus. Specific and reasonable arguments for notability have got to prevail over those who claim a topic is non-notable. Verifiability is also raised as an issue, but the claims in the article are very basic, and do appear to be easily verifiable (although not sourced), and arguments are given that the information can be verified. Mangojuicetalk 19:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A POV summary of the reasons for deletion
1) That the publisher is unverifiable. It is easily verifiable that Unpopular Books has published a number of works. At least two contributors to this page own a number of them. As I have stated above, I feel that the texts they have published, and their authors, make them notable.
2) Walled Garden. Because Unpopular Books is in some way linked to other projects such as the LPA, etc, it forms part of a walled garden. I would dispute this. It is clear that authors published by Unpopular Books such as Stewart Home, Jean Barrot and Asger Jorn as well as the collected works of the Black Mask Group have a wide appeal. They are, individually, relatively obscure, but to my mind clearly notable within their respective fields. If people feel that pages on the Neoist Alliance, or LPA, or AAA or NLI should be deleted then I would think that individual calls for deletion should be done on those pages and not here. I note that nobody is proposing that Asger Jorn or Stewart Home be deleted from Wikipedia.
3) "An under-construction text based official website [15]". The page is about Unpopular Books and the works they have published, it is not a page about their website. Indeed it seems unlikely that "it wants to disprove its title using wikipedia as promo vehicle" if its own site is so minimal.
4) "dubious ghits (admittedly a very crude test in this case)". Indeed. As I have pointed out above, googling the authors or titles and Unpopular Books does give a reasonable number of hits for a project of this type (i.e. marginal, but still notable)
5) "Not a hope of passing WP:CORP." Again, as stated above, Unpopular Books is not notable because it is a huge multinational corporation with offices all over the world. It is notable because of the works and authors it has published.
6) "No assertion of notability (for the publisher)". As I have said above: "I am happy to revise the article on the basis that Unpopular Books is notable for the works it has published rather than for being a publishing company." I am unclear if I am entitled to do this whilst the deletion debate is ongoing.
I would invoke most of the reasons for not deleting covered here. I.e. wikipedia is not paper, there is a lack of objective criteria, etc.
It would be helpful if people could respond to these points rather than simply saying "delete" etc - it will add to my understanding of wikipedia if nothing else.
Finally, it seems that the creators of this article have not been informed, could the person who initiated the call for deletion do that? John Eden 14:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (No consensus). --- Glen 07:53, 25 September 2006 (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)) . |
First deletion reason: Conspiracy cruft video. Fails to assert notability by reference to any reliable sources except a small town newspaper and the Portland alt-weekly (which even my garage band warrants). Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films), WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and WP:VAIN. Not available on Blockbuster or Netflix. Morton devonshire 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21 September 2006 (UTC)
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 18:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are some of the questions an encyclopedia article on "(any religion) in (any country)" should address.
The result was redirect. If anyone wants to do any merging the history is still there. Petros471 12:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. There is a "Bad Boys of SNL" TV special, but the term is not used elsewhere. The video could be referenced from the SNL page, but there is no 'group of actors' going by this name. Sparkhead 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Glen 15:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the same reason stated at Freedom Alliance. --Stubbleboy 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Glen 15:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inherently a game guide, providing little meaningful material and violating WP:NOT a crystal ball. Should therefore be deleted as gamecruft. Prod removed by IP. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 02:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Glen 15:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a non-notable painter. I googled her and found her own website and a few sites where anyone can list their own products. I found no indication that she has had any exhibitions in independent galleries, won any awards, articles written about her, etc. I realize this is a stub but without at least a little more it probably doesn't qualify as encyclopedic material. If she has had any exhibitions, awards, etc., adding that should be enough to justify keeping this. RickReinckens 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as author blanked content. The JPStalk to me 11:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this Ph.D is more notable then any other. This is not a CSD A7 as being a Ph.D asserts importance. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Glen 15:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A defunct EverQuest server. There doesn't seem to be anything too special about it. I did a Google search which brought up a ton of hits (seeing as its Everquest), but no reliable sources to verify anything. The article was prodded for a while, and removed by an anon basically because he/she could. The vast majority of this article consists of cruft that would be better placed on personal webspace. Wafulz 02:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Glen 15:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn website, alexa of 1,215,622 [24] Giant onehead 02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
niche website, alexa of 658,601 [25] Giant onehead 02:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spun off from main Eric Cartman page, but I see no encyclopedic value in including this list. Do we include every single "top X" list ever broadcast? Andrew Levine 02:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn niche site, alexa of 603,208 [26] Giant onehead 02:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
site is spanish, so it is not suitable for the English edition here, alexa rating is a modest 132,448 Giant onehead 02:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Glen 03:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Webcomic not meeting WP:WEB. No reliable sources on this subject in the article or that I've found, which is in clear violation of WP:V. Its essentially a giant listing of every storyline/gag ever in the comic. Delete.
The result was Delete. Glen 03:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the fact that this article was created by an editor whose only other edits are adding to other articles a couple internal links to this article, I would say the article pretty clearly qualifies as spam. It reads like a press release or corporate website "About" page, and the article's subject appears to be a small, non-notable California technology company with only one product. There are no links to the page from other articles, now that I have reverted the article creator's two edits to other articles on the grounds that they were link spam. I placed the article up for proposed deletion, but the article creator removed the template. Nevertheless, I feel this article is unencyclopedic and amounts to little more than an advertisement or corporate directory entry, and should be deleted. --Slowking Man 03:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable movie, with neither an IMDB profile [28] or a Rotten Tomatoes profile [29]. Hasn't been mentioned in any non-trivial, notable media sources; and only 198 unique Google results, most of which are links to forums, blogs, and myspace profiles. [30]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brought up by myself at DRV[37] over the first deletion result (no consensus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamikaze), a recommendation for a second AfD was put forward. I'll paste the post of User:Samuel Blanning that best describes the reasons for deletion:
In my own opinion on the matter I see it as nothing more than a tiny internet neologism that hasn't met widespread use beyond non-notable unreliable sources. –– Lid(Talk) 03:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TheronJ 15:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep but subject to conditions. The article has reliable sources, but inline citations appear to be pointing to blogs. Unless credibility of these blogs are properly established, they must be removed and replaced by the news reports as listed in the article as per WP:BLP. If the editors fail to fulfill this requirement after a reasonable period, please feel free to nominate it for deletion again (rather than running the risk). - Mailer Diablo 15:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to have been created simply to embarass its subject, who is non-notable. SkipSmith 04:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, even after repair. Fails the so-called "100-year test". --Aaron 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. That goes for the beach as well [38]. Húsönd 04:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This game is a very popular game in that part of the world. Wikipedia is a global enyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pringles123456789 (talk • contribs)
The most recent edits were not made by me. At the moment, this page is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pringles123456789 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains promotional information taken from Yeshivat Bircas Hatorah's website. The yeshiva itself appears to be small and non-notable Eliyak T·C 04:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CANCELLED. Sock run. -Splash - tk 17:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local Amreican weather presenter. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) . First vote was filled with CFIF sockpuppet nonsense and was undeleted. Lets have a clean vote this time! Lost Knob 05:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Petros471 12:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is unencyclopeadic, and not nessecary. It should be merged with the LEXX article.
The result was delete. —freak(talk) 19:13, Sep. 22, 2006 (UTC)
Prod'd but prod tag removed. WP:NOT a how-to/travel guide, WP:OR, essay, advert... anything else? --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, booyakasha. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Musician is non-notable. Fails the "Google test"; the only result is for the already referenced MySpace link. Tagged for Speedy Deletion twice, but tags were removed. -- Dcflyer 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The AfD template was removed and this discussion deleted (by Allllllll), but now restored. -- Dcflyer 07:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC). Removed twice. -- Dcflyer 07:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC). Now a third time by 24.82.232.122. -- Dcflyer 08:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC) And a fourth by 24.82.232.122. --Casper2k3 02:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD page currently vandalized 10 times. -- Dcflyer 05:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanispamcruftisement for a magazine claiming an Australia-wide circulation of 30,000. According to its website, it's only 5 issues old. Originally prodded by me, prod tag removed without any explanation. Coredesat talk! 06:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge & Redirect into Christchurch Casino. Glen 03:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising Richard 06:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising. Product does not meet WP notability criteria. 347 Google hits, with no third-party writeups as far as I can tell. Two Prod tags and one advert tag have been removed. The article was created by a director of the company which makes this product. I sincerely compliment him for being honest about it. Kla'quot Sound 06:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This particular product sector is rapidly evolving with new developments in products which will in turn need definition. Such as the slimline memory foam mattress. Restore is the only manufacturer of this product which is worth differentiating from a more standard mattress. There are also other developments of Memory Foam applications such as memory foam pet beds. For this reason please advise on how this article should be changed. Regards. RestoreFoam 10:54, 22 September 2006
The result was delete. Please note that whilst I've recreated the article as a redirect to UNC-Duke rivalry, that is not part of this afd closure, the redirect destination can be changed via discussion on the article's talk page. Petros471 13:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable nickname for Duke used by UNC fans. By this logic, the most trivial of nicknames deserves its own article. Seems fine to me that's it's mentioned in UNC-Duke rivalry, but doesn't merit its own article, in my opinion. Bluedog423Talk 06:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stumbled on this while tagging nonsense articles of the original creator, Jchinwamo (talk · contribs), for deletion. Given the single edit beyond the recent nonsense articles creation and the username of the creator of the article this is obviously a case of WP:Vanity by the author. The mp3 address lists the group but nothing about them to assert notability. A search for the comic mentioned has been fruitless and even if it does exist it's admitted in the article it was only seen by a niche audience. –– Lid(Talk) 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CANCELLED due to repeated sockery. -Splash - tk 17:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local Amreican weather presenter. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) . First vote was filled with CFIF sockpuppet nonsense and was undeleted. Lets have a clean vote this time! Lost Knob 08:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Petros471 12:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the founder of Eigomanga. An article already exists for the company. Outside of this context, he is not particularly notable; most of the article is about his various jobs, such as a translator and consultant. None of the material in the article is referenced, and it generally reads as a vanity article, especially if the edit history is taken into account. A Google search yields only about sixty or so references to Eigomanga's Austin Osueke, most from press releases. Very few articles link to this article, all of which appear to have been linked after-the-fact by editors to this article. In short, if the subject of this article should be mentioned at all, it should be in the Eigomanga article (perhaps this could be redirected there). --Slowking Man 08:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't provide anything that isn't already assumed, none of it is sourced, and some of it is speculation. J Ditalk 08:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod about a school that fails to assert notability. MER-C 09:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, notablity. In my opinion, an autobiographical article (created by the subject). I dont think this is notable enough for wikipedia, possibly vanity page. MidgleyDJ 09:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indian village mayor who lost some elections on a provincial and/or national level. Fails WP:BIO, unsourced. Her non-governmental efforts might be notable, but I could not verify them. Prod removed by anon without improvement. Delete. Huon 09:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7. Kusma (討論) 11:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, speedy and prod deleted by anon (or the user who just logged out). -- TexMurphy 10:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
poorly written and poorly formatted article about "the coolest middle school" (to 7th grade). Delete as crufty and unencyclopaedic. Ohconfucius 10:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, and move to "(meteorologist)" I guess. — CharlotteWebb 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, seems like a vanity page. Amnewsboy 10:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completing AFD by an IP, deletion reason was "self promotion/ advertisement". Abstain MER-C 10:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was flagged as copyvio. MER-C 12:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable article and is just a copy of the IMDB biography. BertieBasset 11:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as copyvio ("© 2004-2005 Miles Consulting Corp") by Uncle G. MER-C 11:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be possible to write an article about this corporation, but the current incarnation is vanity/advertising by User:Milesconsultingcorp. We should NOT let advertising hang around while we wait for a valid article. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP, 27 distinct Google hits (50 if you remove the ltd), no other notable properties. Prod removed by IP user without comment. Fram 11:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn web video site, alexa rating of 1,738,106 [43] Giant onehead 22:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPAM Archibald99 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Petros471 12:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... a canoe. I don't see the notability of this. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like crytalballing to me. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 19:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not look notablile. Also can we answear the general question of, is everything that is on the national registry notable? Depending on the response to the last question should deciede if this is a keep or a delete. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, maybe not, depends on your perspective I guess. Dillon figures prominently in the history of Sterling, Illinois. I don't know thoughA mcmurray 05:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:43, 25 September 2006 (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)) . |
I believe that this is a non-notable messageboard. We don't, for example, have an article about the University of Michigan's forum. Or most university forums for that matter. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 23:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Yanksox 12:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Main claim to fame is that a band member is on Australian Idol. Would probably not have been created otherwise. Serserse 03:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete I see no reason to keep this page It has no weight to add, nor is of any real import. Please vote —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mystar (talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- While yes It is almost certain that they will release a 10th album, when is unknown and it will not be called "Untitled"; this is comeplete crystal balling. (copied the opposed prod text. Personally, every band can have an untitled + some number.` —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a page for a fictional character who never appeared in the TV series, only un-notable, non-canon books. Philip Stevens 11:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This entry fails WP:NEO and is basically a dictionary definition. This is a failed prod/prod2. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This entry has been re-written avoiding copyright concerns, but now, and did not before, meet the criteria of WP:CORP. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This entry fails WP:NEO and also WP:WINAD. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This entry fails the criteria of WP:CORP. Based on the fact the creator's id is from the corp, it likely also fails WP:OR and WP:VANITY. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an advertisement for a non-notable place. --NE2 13:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable person, fails WP:BIO. Being related to some famous persons does not make you automatically famous as well. A feeble 66 distinct Google hits, 169 hits in total. This is not caused by the lack of info on historical figures on the internet, if you compare it to the 1.4 million hits for Wyatt Earp or even the 35,000 for Virgil Earp. Newton Earp lived an uneventful life and had an uneventful death: a passing mention on the Wyatt Earp article, if needed, will suffice. Fram 13:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A contested prod that does not assert the notability of its subject. MER-C 13:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article, written by an editor with the same name as the contact given for the WIF, makes extraordinary claims -- the planned construction of a global science city being the most remarkable, with the huge number of claimed Nobelist members not being far behind. (The same editor has also linked large numbers of scientists' Wikipedia articles to this article, and also to the WIF website; so many that I blocked them for linkspamming.)
Yet, apart from a number of distinguished academics having accepted fellowships and other awards offered in letters from the WIF, there seems to be remarkably little evidence to back up its claims that does not come, directly or indirectly, from the WIF itself. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#World Innovation Foundation for more discussion about this, and details of some of the concerns about verifying the WIF's claims.
I propose that we delete this article unless verifiable evidence can be provided for the assertions in this article. If the WIF is an organization of the size and significance asserted by the article, it should have no difficulty doing so. -- The Anome 13:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V and WP:NEO. Doesn't appear to be in widespread currency - 129 Google results, and only 12 unique results (none of them from a reliable source). makomk 13:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I love me some System Shock 2 as much as the next old school computer gamer, but having individual pages on characters who just appear in log messages in the game is (a) too spoilerish and (b) too fancrufty. It's fine to mention the notable characters in the main System Shock 2 article. It's over the top to have this in its own article. Nandesuka 15:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article on this band was previously deleted as a result of discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odious. It appears that nothing has changed since then. I could have speedied it as a recreation of deleted content, or as a nonnotable band... however, I chose to bring it to AfD because repeated recreation of deleted content may be evidence for notability. I am not taking a stand one way or the other on that possibility, but I wanted to make sure it got a fair hearing. Powers T 13:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, after considering arguments presented, not !vote numbers. Petros471 13:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably well-intentioned, because some thought has gone in to categories and "see also" links, but this appears to be an advert for a website and may not be sufficiently notable. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 12:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable neologism. There are 89 unique search engine results, none of which establish a reason for this term to be in this encyclopedia at the present time[58]. Deprodded after 4+ days by the creator, who saw fit to make no changes to the article and to make no comments as to why he felt it appropriate to save this article. Erechtheus 13:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Claims notability but very few Ghits[59][60]. Speedy and prod tags deleted by author. -- TexMurphy 13:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted, recreation of previously deleted and userfied article, CSD A7, CSD G4 -- The Anome 12:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page and duplicate text from the user's page Janarius 14:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded it, and it was de-prodded by article creator Raguks under the reasoning: ISA is one of the useful organisation. Many look for ISA to know oppurtunity in Canada. That is a sufficient notability. While it may be useful, so are lots of businesses that still fail WP:CORP. Even aside from questionable notability, this seems to be a fairly young student group; while they can't all be Skull and Bones, there doesn't seem to be enough history, notable alumni, etc. to compose a decent article with. If all the contact information and so on was removed from the article, we'd be stuck with a permanent 3-sentence stub. SnowFire 14:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect Danity Kane (album). It was already done during the afd and EndlessVince seems to have commented on the album itself. Someone might look for the song so a redirect is better than deletion, but a supposed single that might be released next may won't make a good article by itself. - Bobet 15:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should either not be listed or should be in the group's own article Springnuts 19:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No claim of notability beyond an uncited magazine award. Delete per WP:CORP. Haakon 14:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine is already cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fvianna (talk • contribs) 07:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising spam. SkipSmith 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, "joke", hoax, WP:NPOV, WP:V. I'm not sure there is a policy this page doesn't violate. - FrancisTyers · 14:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: MariusM placed a notice on Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board 18:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC) notifying people of this deletion and specifically requesting a keep vote. I notice that no one made a note of that here. - Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article merely describes the usage and origins of the word, which are perfectly appropriate topics for a dictionary, but not an encyclopedia. Both spellings of the word are already in Wiktionary so no need to transwiki. Recury 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP, non notable company, less than 1,000 Google hits (even less distinct ones of course), which isn't a lot for a software company Fram 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. The only site that confirms the band and their recordings exist is their own Blogger entry. Prolog 15:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 17:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
individual plays are not notable, borderline WP:OR and fails WP:V in some parts, and clearly violates WP:NPOV, Delete Jaranda wat's sup 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. Article suggests the band has released six recordings (demos), but Metal-Archives.com confirms only three of these. Nonetheless, the band is not notable enough. Prolog 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, Not notable. Barring wikipedia and its mirrors, only gets his home page, a rankingsoftware.com link and a freedictionary link on google: [62] Richfife 15:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily and saltily deleted by Lucky 6.9. --Coredesat talk! 17:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed with the comment "This document should NOT be deleted. I verify that Zippy was a valid and major character on our server." Apparently, a character created by a gamer on one server of the SWG MMORPG, unknown outside that server. Fails WP:FICT and WP:WEB, whichever applies. Fan-1967 14:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails WP:CORP. Out of the 326 unique search hits, there is only one bit of coverage about the mall itself. Erechtheus 15:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Online gaming magazine that was the focus of one MTV news article a year ago. No other news coverage indicated, and thus fails WP:WEB (i.e., multiple non-trivial published works). Chock full o' vanity (creator has same username as the managing editor). -- Merope Talk 15:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as the article isn't incomplete original research, it appears to be based on anything but reliable sources. No doubt there's an encyclopedia article to be written on the claimed genealogies of Anglo-Saxon kings, and what those claims tell us - the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England has an article on Genealogies, Royal - but this isn't it nor does it contain any useful material for such an article. Apart from WP:NOR and WP:V issues, there's also no primary sources to consider. I suggest to delete but do not protect against recreation as this is a valid headword. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems unnecessarily crufty. More of a Star Trek wiki thing than a Wikipedia thing.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Hand Grenade. - Bobet 15:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is non-notable by itself, and should probably be combined into an article encompassing all weapons from the video game. Propose delete and merge as such. --Dennisthe2 17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted by Luna Santin as copyvio (WP:CSD A8) - Yomanganitalk 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
notability not established; few related links found - CobaltBlueTony 17:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV list of people with absolutely no criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I tagged it with cleanup and wikify tags, but looking at the history, there seems to be little chance of that ever happening. Coredesat talk! 17:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, attack page. NawlinWiki 21:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a real Thomas O'Brien at Verizon, which is why it's heavily wikilinked (See what links here. This isn't him. I'm not sure if this qualifies as CSD G1 patent nonsense, which is why I brought it here. TransUtopian 17:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a hoax. I asked at the discussion page of Ice Hockey first and no-one has indicated that they recognize the term. No reference found in Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GringoInChile (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously nominated a few months ago resulting to no consensus. This article is fancruft and over-emphasising a WWE storyline that really isn't that notable for Wikipedia and lasted only a good few weeks before the McMahon/Michaels feud evolved away from religion. Oakster (Talk) 17:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is not notable per the guidelines of WP:BIO. [Check Google hits] Search for only "Brad Gotshall" brings up 25 Google hits; "Destish" shows 60, none of which have to do with a media company. I don't really know what this article is supposed to be. I tagged it as a prod, and the article author removed it.... discospinster talk 19:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Company fails the WP:CORP guideline. Article reads like an advert. Was speedy deleted once before and has remained unimproved for six months, with no additional evidence of notability despite appropriate tags Gwernol 19:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable conspiracy theorist. All the relevant information has been merged into the Loose Change (video) article. Peephole 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 15:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable artist bio, fails WP:BIO. Article link kindly added by author of article shows that she has gotten a solo exhibition at the art centre of a colleague-alumnus, and the article is from her school as well, in a series about recent alumni. No outside reviews, awards, works in musea or major exhibitions, ... She may become notable, but for now, she is just one of many debuting artists. Fram 19:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Glen 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn mod, misleading title Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 19:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed because someone disagreed that this should be deleted without discussion, so listing now. My main concern with this article is that there is nothing special about songs that start with telephone sounds. If this is kept it opens the door for Songs that start with burping noises, Songs that start with baboons arguing, and Songs that start with with someone saying the word banana. In other words, it opens the door for a list of songs that start with ANYTHING, a potentially endless amount of lists. My other concern was that this list was entirely unsourced, however the person who removed the prod added a couple sources for individual songs. The vast majority still isn't sourced. WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. VegaDark 19:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was proposed for deletion as a neologism and original research. The OR is gone but it is still a protologism per the zero ghits for the word wagflation. WP:NOT applies. Delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft, indiscriminate collection of information. Subjective and ambiguous, most of the listed songs are really not about laziness, but about resting, sleeping, boredom or temporal idleness, and many merely include the word "lazy" in the title or in the lyrics. Ezeu 19:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A DRV consensus has overturned the previous closure unanimously, resulting in a deletion of the article. [64] Xoloz 15:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was prodded, but author deprodded for consistency with First to Sixth Party System. It looks to me as if the whole range is fairly unnotable, but that the use of the terms declines dramatically to the end of the range, making the article Seventh Party System a case of WP:OR. Seventh Party System gets 10 distinct Google hits, which is terribly low for something that only started in 1994. Of these links, at least this one[65] lets the seventh start in 2000 at the earliest. This article[66] only agrees on the first five (which are not up for deletion), and sees the outlines of a seventh system only in 1996. So we have very few references for a seventh party system, and the few we have disagree seriously. This makes the concept non notable and the article WP:OR or at least not according to WP:NPOV and hard to WP:V. By the way, we even have only 59 distinct Google hits for the Sixth Party System, so the whole concept seems to be a bit out of fashion... Fram 19:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
((cite journal))
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help)) says "a debate rages as to whether the United States is in its sixth or even seventh party system" and cites Aldrich. Aldrich (John H. Aldrich (1999). "Political Parties in a Critical Era". American Politics Research. 27 (1). SAGE Publications: 9–32. doi:10.1177/1532673X99027001003.), in xyr turn, merely argues (writing in 1999) that we "should be reaching the end of the consequent sixth party system". U.S. political historians don't appear to yet agree that the seventh party system has yet come to be. Uncle G 20:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]I hope my comments help with some context as to the need for this article, as part of the series.
Sincerely, Josephf 21:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is 3 Keeps and 2 Deletes (not counting an anonymous vote.) Can we remove the tag from the article? (There seems to be a strong argument for maintenance and at best there is no rough consensus to remove.) Joseph 16:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Redirect is optional. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published book. Author removed speedy tag and is likely to remove prod tag. Plus, I kind of doubt this is the only book on Amelia Earhart's disappearance, as asserted. NawlinWiki 19:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The remark of the above party is a very 'anti-book' remark. Most of the best writers have started out by self publishing. "A good book is a good book--regardless of who printed it" is my motto.
LEGERDEMAIN is a fully, legally published book, which is, indeed, the only non-theory book ever published on the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. It has been featured repeatedly at the Amelia Earhart Festival in Atchison, KS and is drawing increasing attention. It represents a step forward in collecting and correlating the knowledge on this subject. The party who posted the complaint should get a copy of the book and check it out before lodging complaints. --David K. Bowman, wikiman999
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
just lyrics Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 20:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Bobet 15:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn-game Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 20:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable British child stage actress; article asserts some press coverage so probably not speediable (and speedy tag removed by author anyway). NawlinWiki 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think she is an amazing actress i saw her playing Dracula's girl in the palladium and loved it. I saw on google that she had got into acting and got through into The journey to the moon. She is inspiring dont delete it please— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotbabe109 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A self-evident hoax: both "Uniform Communication Processor" and "Ono-Sendati" get zero Google hits (well, apart from one dead matchmaking webpage, oddly enough). The PROD was deleted immediately, of course. WP:V, WP:NOT etc. apply. Sandstein 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This young man who started a record company has absolutely no evidence of notability given in the article File Éireann 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hoax article created by Flinders, a known sockpuppet of Mattisse. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (2nd) -999 (Talk) 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 15:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three articles relating to a local band from Buffalo, New York (the band, an unreleased "album", and a list of also unreleased songs). The "album" appears to refer to a performance they did on a local college radio show; I suppose it may have been recorded, but any recording isn't even available on their website. As mentioned, the band has a website, as well as a MySpace page, and their gigs are posted on setlist.com, but that's about it. They have not achieved any of the indicators of notability commonly used for musical groups. The articles are orphans with no other links from elsewhere in Wikipedia. They appear to have been created by a group member (some of the text is a copy of what appears on their MySpace page), and there's an absence of sources aside from what they're saying about themselves. --Michael Snow 20:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article violates wikipedia's cardinal content policy of verifiability. Moreover it is also a duplicate of the Waziristan accord but with the twist that a newly coined term i.e. 'Islamic Emirate of Waziristan' has been used in order to give the uninformed reader the illusion that there is some newly formed independent state which has been set up in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The fact of the matter is that the tribal areas or FATA have always been out of the bounds of the central government and even though the Waziristan accord binds the government to remove newly constructed security check points in the region; it does not call for the total withdrawl of government presence and creation of some separate state, as has been implied here. As such this article is a total work of fiction and is based on false foundations. The references are weak, to say the least, and thus this article needs to be removed. Red aRRow 20:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite Red aRRow’s unsupported assertion, this article does violate the principle of verifiability. Quite the contrary; the article is rather well footnoted. Red aRRow need only refer to footnotes one and two to verify the article’s introduction. As such, Red aRRow’s insertion of verification needed edit is clearly erroneous and borders on vandalism (as does the entire attempt to delete this article). The fact that a publication has printed facts which contradict an official state policy (of any government) does not render that publication irreputable.
Second, Red aRRow’s assertion that this article “is also a duplicate of the Waziristan accord” is simply incorrect. One need only compare the two articles—both their content and their citations—to discern the difference. However, one correction should be noted with respect to the article and the term “Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.” The author of the article states that "The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is the name given by some commentators to an area of Waziristan, Pakistan that they say gained de facto recognition from the Government of Pakistan on September 5, 2006 as a result of negotiations between Islamabad and local tribesmen to end the undeclared Waziristan War.” (Emphasis added.) Actually, the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is not what “some commentators” have termed this de facto autonomous region; rather, it is the name coined by the Pakistani Taliban for their new “state.” (See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13990130/site/newsweek/ at ¶ 2.)
Third, whether or not the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan exists as a de facto state is irrelevant to its validity as an article. Contrary to Red aRRow’s unsupported assertion that the article is “a total work of fiction,” the article is fully verified and factual. Unlike Red aRRow, the author makes no assertions of opinion, and also unlike Red aRRow, virtually all of the article’s facts are cited to legitimate and reputable original sources.
Red aRRow is obviously passionate about the Pakistani government’s reputation in light of the peace treaty recently signed with the Taliban in Waziristan. Nevertheless, Nationalist passion—however fervent—should not be allowed to dictate which articles remain in Wikipedia, and which are deleted. A review of Red aRRow in existing Wikipedia pages reveals a singular concern for maintaining Pakistani honor, which is perfectly legitimate as long as the arguments are factual and based on violations of Wikipedia policy. In this case, they are not.
Furthermore, as the article fortunately documents, the Pakistani government has essentially stated that it would like to have the article deleted. Nationalism is not a basis upon which to delete an article. Indeed, the irony of Red aRRow’s and the Pakistani government’s arguments is that to delete the article would itself be a violation of Wikipedia policy.
I would respectfully disagree with Sandstein’s two arguments. First, as pointed out above (and by Sandstein himself), the article is verified.
With respect to the neologism argument, I would say that while perhaps technically true, a neologism is not fatal per se. Moreover, given how recently it was “created,” the disputed nature of its status, and its geographic and cultural remoteness, to say the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is a neologism doesn’t mean a whole lot—it’s somewhat of a tautology. Likewise, given how underreported this region is, to wait until a vague “mainstream use” is attained offers no benefit other than denying the reader the opportunity to educate himself and seek out original sources. Finally, the article should not be deleted until “such a state is actually founded.” The point of the article is its “founding” according to the Pakistani Taliban, and arguably according to the terms of the peace treaty between Pakistan and the Taliban. If an entity is deserving of an article only if it has widespread international recognition, then shouldn’t the Transnistria article be deleted as well? And for that matter, the Islamic Emirate of Afganistan should as well considering the fact that only a couple of countries ever officially recognized it.
Finally, the phrase “Islamic Emirate of Waziristan” has historical and contextual significance. This new entity was founded/is attempting to be founded by the same people who founded the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The article should remain. Mtclvrt mtclvrt 9/21/06—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtclvrt (talk • contribs) .
At first i thought it was a practical joke but i was surprised to find that it was being taken seriously. 132.161.221.18 21:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the claims that wikipedia is becoming "infested with indians", please take a look at the primary contributors to this article. I am not Indian. I am a 6th generation Irish American from the Midwest. Osgoodelawyer is a Canadian law student. Inkan1969 is not Indian as far as I can tell -- his edits suggest he's a fan of microstates, flags, and national anthems worldwide.
Take a look at the two main news sources underpinning the article, Asia Times Online and Newsweek. Asia Times Online is based in Hong Kong. Newsweek is based in the US. Neither have any stake in the India/Pakistan conflict. Take a look at the reporters who have provided us thes articles. Mr. Syed Saleem Shahzad, the Pakistan Bureau Chief for Asia Times Online, appears to be Muslim, not Hindu, if his name is any indication. The Newsweek reporters, Ron Moreau and Hussain Zahid, also lack Hindu names.
I am dumbfounded by the claims we are "Indian teenagers", "devious indians", and that our edits evidence Wikipedia is "increasingly infested with indians". How could anybody come to that conclusion? You've given me quite an education as to how high passions run on this topic, and how these emotions do not require an basis in evidence. It discredits you severely, if I can be frank. I thought the periodic insanity on the Tibet talk page was the epitome of irrational, emotional outburst, but by comparison it's a model of cold scientific reason...
On the topic of bias, I just took the time to check the user contributions of everyone who has voted "delete" so far in this discussion. Silly me, I took the time to check up a bit on who is saying what here. Save User:Sandstein, who votes "weak delete", I observe that none of you has made a single edit on any topics besides the topic of Pakistan or India/Pakistan conflict (that's Red aRRow, 82.31.151.203, 62.31.20.122, 203.82.48.56, Dizasta76, and 132.161.221.18 -- all monotopic contributors). (Not quite zero actually -- one of the IP addresses made a single edit to adjust the Muslim population quoted on the demographics of Thailand page). So you guys are not exactly the model of unbiased contributorship. I also observe the eldest of you, Red aRRow, has only been contributing since July. Prior to his involvement in this article (he is the one pushing for this VfD), his edits have been limited entirely to topics pertaining to the Pakistan Navy...
I can't help but connect a dot or two. This past week the Government of Pakistan publicly stated they will take "immediate notice" of this article on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what that means, but it comes to mind that perhaps a few of you are employed by the Government of Pakistan. Nothing at all wrong with working for the Government of Pakistan and contributing to Wikipedia, but it does seem suspicious that the long-time Pakistani Wikipedians are silent from this dispute, while all these newbies are crying "lies!" and "fiction!" and repeatedly attaching POV and VfD flags to the article, without bothering to provide a single verifiable source to counter the references put up by the Wikipedians outside south asia.
Changing gears, let me add a few more points to the thoughtful contributions made above in defense of this article:
Finally, on merge vs. keep: Tom harrison's suggestion to merge the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan with Waziristan Accord is not an unreasonable one, if we take a certain view of what's happening. That particular view is that the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is important primarily in light of the Waziristan accord. That view probably has the best odds of prevailing in the end, but it is not the only view out there. Another view, and this argues for keep, is that the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is essentially a branch of the Pakistan Taliban, and it has impact and influence apart from this accord. The very name "Islamic Emirate of Waziristan" has strong Taliban overtones, as 203.81.213.157 points out (it directly evokes the name the Afghanistan Taliban used for itself). If the Pakistan Foreign Office statement is taken at face value, the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is a Taliban organization which was not party to the accord. If so they were not partty to the accord, they should not be consolidated onto the accord page. technopilgrim 22:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the press laws imposed in 2002 that caused the International Federation of Journalists to write[73]:
The International Federation of Journalists, the world's largest journalists' organisation, representing over 500,000 journalists worldwide, is deeply concerned over the recent adoption of three new press laws that it believes will seriously impact on the freedom of the press in Pakistan.
According to our information, the Pakistani government adopted the new press laws on August 31 2002 that increase the penalties for defamation, impose a system of prior authorisation for the news media, and create a government controlled press council, despite objections from Pakistani journalists.
We understand that the new defamation laws allow for penalties ranging from a minimum fine of US$800 through to prison sentences. We also understand that the Press Council is not independent of Government, with four representatives, including its president, appointed by the Government.
This constitutes government regulation of the press by my standards, if not by yours.
Regarding the general who spoke to ABC News, my mistake, he was not a Brigadier General. He was a Major General, which would be one step up from Brigadier General I'm guessing. This is not the first time my memory for detail has failed me. It was a General Shaukat Sultan who told ABC News on Tuesday, September 5th, that bin Laden would not be taken into custody "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen". Here's the follow up story at ABC News.
technopilgrim 17:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted per CSD A7. Naconkantari 05:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the first paragraph of the article, "Arekkusu is a fictional character that does not appear in the anime series Naruto. He is merely created by a fan to be a character that might live in that world. He will be a character in a upcoming fan-fiction that is not yet titled and the release date has not been set." Falls under Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Fancruft, and possibly other guidelines that I'm not familiar with. ~SnapperTo 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant of established List of search engines, seems like it will attract little more than external link spamming (WP:BEANS). ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn fansite, is dormant Giant onehead 21:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. Petros471 13:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PoV fork of Democratic-Republican Party (United States); unsourced, inaccurate, PoV and interfering with getting the location of that article, which is disputed, settled. Produced by cut-and-paste by a single unser. Septentrionalis 21:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Widthdrawn following substantial improvement by Uncle G and Harvestdancer. Guy 20:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A dicdef, tagged as unreferenced since march - actually has two references, a copy of a Greek dictionary on the site of serial link spammer and sockpuppeteer User:Jason Gastrich, and answers.com. Guy 21:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Astroturfing. Clear consensus that this doesn't need an article; merging there seems reasonable, but that article already includes a brief, sourced paragraph on this topic. Feel free to merge more fully from the history. Mangojuicetalk 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. 98 google hits., mostly from blogs. It is mentioned in one issue of Economist, but all they say it's a non-notable organization, for which one can find no details: (the Economist article)
They also claim on their website:
Yet, their domain was registered in January 2006 and there's no proof on the internet or otherwise that it existed previously. bogdan 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a vanity page. It is nothing short of shameless advertising, and even cites the tremendously annoying advertising jingle. The only thing missing is the phone number.
If every auto glass company in the world could have its own Wikipedia page, we would have thousands of pages on Executive Auto Glass, Ocean Auto Glass, and so forth. At a certain point, this kind of nonsense has to stop. I dare anyone (in good faith) to explain why this article should be kept. YechielMan 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. GRBerry 13:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a lot of nonsense. Speedy Delete Clamster5 22:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a lot of nonsense. Clamster5 22:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Bobet 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a vanity article,for the user,Arthur Rubin,other than (has earned a place among the five top ranked undergraduate competitors ) thers nothing else.I don't think this is notable enof for wikipedia. Pixel ;-) 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:MUSIC, and is a probable hoax. Joyous! | Talk 23:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This hip hop artist was featured on an hour long special on WRFA 107.9 on the Local Music Showcase hour, completing the requirement of a half hour radio broadcast dedicated to an artist. he therefore qualifies to be added to Wikipedia. In addition he is on the rise and in time will complete other requirements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.169.140.190 (talk • contribs) .
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a notable group. There are only five lodges recognized in the whole of the US according to the Masonic Restoration Foundation here, yet it claims to be an "important historical movement", and the MRF itself that warrants these lodges was founded only in 2001. Therefore, apart from the bias of the article (which reads a lot like an advertisement), this article fails Wikipedia notability guidelines. MSJapan 23:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete it, will add ((merge)) tag as opinions are divided on the issue. — CharlotteWebb 17:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article defines one of the 500 chess opening variations contained in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings. It is not a particularly unusual opening. If we will not include all 500 ECO categories (which of course we will not), we should not include even one of them. The convention on Wikipedia is, justifiably, to list openings according to their common name, such as Sicilian Defense, French Defense, and King's Gambit, among others. Each named opening covers many ECO listings. Anyone who knows what I'm talking about will almost certainly agree. YechielMan 23:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If every chess club in the world had a Wikipedia page, there would be thousands of them. This is not notable, and is arguably a vanity page. YechielMan 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]