The result was speedy deletion. This is patent nonsense (CSD A1). Jesse Viviano 03:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense or Advertisement Warlord dehacker 01:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those, follows a Bungie storyline.. AdjutantReflex is a character in Halo lore.
Speedy Delete Article is patent nonsense in all revisions. CitiCat 03:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Volta (album). --Coredesat 01:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful artist; great album and song - but no source whatsoever that this will be released as a single. Per Björk's website only the first three singles have been confirmed. WP:CRYSTAL. - eo 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Steve (Stephen) talk 06:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful artist; great album and song - but no source whatsoever that this will be released as a single. Per Björk's website only the first three singles have been confirmed. WP:CRYSTAL. - eo 23:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --Steve (Stephen) talk 06:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of a professor which does not have a sourced fact which meets the criteria at WP:PROF. Prod was contested on the basis that he has publications (so do all professors), and is at a good university (not a WP:PROF criteria). Savidan 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nom withdrawn, non-admin. Morgan Wick 18:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. This is a curriculum vitae, not an article. Ford MF 22:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Withdraw nomintion. I've been convinced. Ford MF 18:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. My impression is that nobody will shoot me for closing a relisted AFD once consensus is reached, especially since Dhartung's reference resolved one of the initial concerns. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 23:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Unsourced. Non-notable. No information about (e.g. ) instrument played. Appears to be vanity page. Flagged since Nov 2006 for sources and information Smerus 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete -- Y not? 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable association, fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) --Oscarthecat 16:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per BLP concerns. MaxSem 13:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unreferenced article about seemingly not notable person. No article on Polish Wikipedia, almost no google hits. Previously speedily deleted as "likely hoax" and recreated by User:Matti1003. Jogers (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I bring this here with a heavy heart, as I love the song too, but it doesn't qualify for its own article, being an album bonus track and B-side of a single. Contested PROD. EliminatorJR Talk 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 07:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nn film writer who fails the provisions laid out at WP:BIO. I nominated this a year ago, which resulted in no consensus (see previous entry for further grounds for deletion). Since then, nothing of substance has been added that would help the subject pass the notability standard laid out for individuals. Eusebeus 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 07:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. Four of the edits have been from bots, another was adding a no category template. and another was adding a category. This person isn't notable. Wikihermit 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Before assuming that this page was deleted in error, please also see the subsequent discussions on this article:
The result was Early keep - clearly this article isn't going to be deleted, so I've closed this early so it can have its moment on the front page as a DYK, which it was entitled to. It is also one of the better sourced articles on the encyclopedia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A smear article. It's sourced and makes attempts at neutrality, so I don't think this needs speedy deletion, but this is the kind of article I think that WP:BLP and Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism are specifically warning against. This person is a private investigator, formerly a cop that was fired after some infractions serious enough to make the news 26 years ago, but not serious enough to attract any serious attention, and certainly no attention from biographers. The person is not a public figure in the least. The article lays out every salacious detail of his life, and sources them to reliable sources that mention this person tangentially, or are local news stories from a very long time ago. Plus, even from the article I can't really figure out why we're supposed to care: so he was a dirty cop... so he's gotten into trouble... so he works for the Church of Scientology - so what? This seems to be a cult-watch page masquerading as a Wikipedia article. (I request that my fellow admins not speedy delete this article until the debate is over, though. I'd like to avoid a DRV.) Mangojuicetalk 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge → Holocron. The combination of 'delete' and 'merge' commentary suggests a 'no consensus' outcome; however, I have opted to interpret this as a mandate to merge so that the fate of the topic as a whole can be determined through the suggested secondary AFD action. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no notability of the subject matter. The article is based on Sith holocron on Wookieepedia, a Star Wars wiki, where it is more suitable than here. I wouldn't directly object to merging portions of the content into another article, but as it is the subject matter is insufficient for an article of its own. —AldeBaer 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The result was redirect `'юзырь:mikka 22:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copy/duplicate of Chinmaya Mission Sfacets 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, main claim to notability seems to be a not very notable prize, Europäischer Komponistenpreis. Falls below the notability threshold in my opinion. Stefán 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete ^demon[omg plz] 00:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the fake trailers from Grindhouse. Its an indepth summary of the trailer with some trivia factoids. As all the other fake trailers from Grindhouse haven't received their own articles (and they shouldn't) I don't see what makes this one more deserving of one. The only difference is that this was the winner of the trailer competition and was shown in select showings, but I don't think that makes it worthy of its own article. CyberGhostface 20:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why award-winning short films can't get their own entries. This film has gotten national attention and while the article may need revision, it certainly deserves to stay.
Even though the article needs to be cut back severely I don't see a reason to delete it. The other trailers don't have articles on them? Well, maybe someone will make them in the future. This trailer/short film won an award, why not keep an edited version of the article around? Character 01:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge.--Wafulz 19:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for summary style and appropriate statistics when needed (cf. Cleveland Browns seasons), but this is way beyond that and into the realm of "indiscriminate collection of information". Circeus 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Wafulz 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is essentially the work of a single editor, who has in addition to this article contributed: a category for wikipedians who listen to this band (containing one entry, himself), a userbox for people who listen to this band (used by one editor, himself), a number of links to this band form other articles and... well, nothign other than promotion of this band. Which might just be forgivable zeal, but looks a lot like conflict of ionterest when you realise that he also uploaded samples of virtually every song they ever recorded, and that the article lacks any proper independent sourcing, all the external links are projects of the members or their publishers. I tried the google test, but it's a hopeless mess due to the near-generic name. I don't see evidence of significance here, I'm afraid. I also cannot find any of their songs in my admittedly rather staid collection of Christian music, which runs to about 1,500 songs in various collections. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This article is about a wrestler who never got out of regional competition. Other than being a nondescript wrestler, the individual has done nothing notable. A Google search reveals a single blog entry on him and an old regional program listing one of his matches. This article fails to meet WP:BIO. StudierMalMarburg 20:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable wrestler--Ispy1981 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted before for lack of notability and then I deleted a repost as WP:CSD#G4, but another editor opined that it should go to discussion, so I'm bringing it here instead. I've restored all revisions. I favor deletion based on the notability concerns brought up in the first debate. If nothing else, notability isn't established. Chaser - T 19:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure whether this article is an attempt at describing classical elements or whether it's gamecruft or similar, but the classical elements are already covered in far greater detail and clarity elsewhere on Wikipedia and the article title isn't really suitable for turning into a redirect. ~Matticus TC 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 07:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I speedy deleted this as blatant advertising under WP:CSD#G11 because there's nothing biographical in it – no real name, no educational preparation, no life story, nothing but 'watch him here', 'watch him there', 'buy his book', 'buy his programs'. That may sound harsh, but I don't know how else to put it. I've never heard of the guy. Afterward, I was asked to restore the page and list it here instead, so I am. I defer to others to judge its encyclopedic value. KrakatoaKatie 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- Jreferee (Talk) 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. will use that as a model. Whatevernext 08:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 07:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another list of covers. As with all the other such lists that have been deleted, it is not notable simply that one artist played another artist's song. Notable cover versions belong in an article for the cover artist and/or in an article for the song. Otto4711 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Being the mother of the Carpenters isn't enough. Clarityfiend 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although this was nominated once previously and not deleted, recent AFDs which have resulted in the deletion of a dozen or so of these list of covers articles would seem to demonstrate that consensus has changed. As with those other lists, it is not notable that an artist played another artist's songs. Notable covers can be noted in a discography article for the cover artist and/or an article for the song. Otto4711 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an essay. Recreation of deleted article, contested prod. John 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, orphaned article. I have been unable to locate any non-Wikipedia resources discussing this topic. If this process is better known by another name, rename/merge suggestions would be welcome, of course. JavaTenor 19:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nom withdrawn, redirected. Sr13 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An imporant helicopter because of its role, but not notable in encyclopedic terms. Thanks for trying to honor these lifesaving machines, but I'm afraid this just doesn't belong at Wikipedia. FWIW, the crash info also doesn't meet our in-development air crash notability criteria. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A page about how long someone held a barely notable professional wrestling title, which is a predetermined event. A similar page about OVW's Cruiserweight title was deleted. Biggspowd 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted this is. --Coredesat 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoaxish. I can find no Google hits for this supposed album. Created by the same editor as the hoaxisher It Was Already Done 2wice. The artist doesn't seen to exist, either. Corvus cornix 17:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a procedural nomination, article was renominated for deletion, nominator had posted original afd template. No vote, again simply procedural Wildthing61476 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has yet to release an album. fails WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix 17:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by author. Article is crystal balling about a movie that cannot be verified. Cannot find any sources or any information on movie. Wildthing61476 16:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. User has authored a series of nonsense articles today and is heading towards Blocksville at a fast pace. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fanfiction, not verifiable and non-notable. A Google Search for "Darth Malace" turns up only somebody's myspace page and message board posts. Character does not appear in any Star Wars reference work. Wingsandsword 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (A1). soum talk 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Notability. Prod contested by an IP user. Javit 16:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While an analysis of the software companies (which I presume must have been the original intent of the article) would have been great, it has turned out to be mainly a directory listing, outweighing any analysis that might be present. Wikipedia is not a directory. If indexing all the articles is the point, it is better achieved using a category (or category tree). Removing the listing and leaving the article also runs the risk of developing into a directory yet again, thereby making it almost impossible to maintain. soum talk 16:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. All of the "don't delete" arguments are from the same editor. --Coredesat 01:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rex Tomb is an FBI official who has been cited in a few news articles about Osama bin Laden, but otherwise is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and does not meet WP:BIO. There are very insufficient reliable sources to create a biographical article about him. --Aude (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising page, possible conflict of interest with author as well. Not quite sure if the store meets WP:CORP as well. Wildthing61476 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (A7), WP:NOT and WP:SNOW also applies. soum talk 16:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creation of page for a TV episode that has not aired yet, plus using the wrong name of the episode (it's BJ in the House!). The episode is non-notable since it hasn't aired, and with the goings on for the TV Wikiproject, may never be created. Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (G1), article is a hoax. WP:SNOW as well. soum talk 16:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research WP:NOR, or hoax, as some sentences are very funny "Colloquially known as the 'Shitting Death' " - for a disease first introduec 6. june 2007: no hits on Google. No way to (verify this. ) Greswik 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete Hoax--Ispy1981 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 01:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM. The primary contributors seem to be (now anonymous) spammers, editing only this page and other backup related pages to link to both this article and to their website. Efforts to curtail this on both their talk pages & on talk pages of articles have failed. Article created May 20. PRODed for notability by Dynaflow that same day. PROD removed without comment. I PRODed it on June 12 for spam & that prod was also removed without comment and without any change to content. Karnesky 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy closed as uncontested prod. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable actress, article has been tagged as non-notable for nine months with no change, and prodded for 5 days. ornis 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Local school contest, non-noteable, does not cite references, no secondary sources or independant coverage. SkyIsFalling 15:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Coredesat 02:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, scottish preacher. ornis 14:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect this duplicate article to Afemai. I encourage editors looking at that article, in turn, to remember that AFD is not a cleanup service, and also to do their homework, looking for sources to see whether the article can be cleaned up, before even considering AFD again. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Uncle G 16:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally listed this as CSD for nonsense as the text is almost unreadable in sections. Then after rereading the article, I did find some meaningful content which might be worth keeping (despite there being no sources), so I removed the CSD. In any event this article looks like a draft of an essay that a child wrote. Listing it here to get a consensus as to if this article is worth keeping, deleting, or perhaps merging with something else. Rackabello 14:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, mainly since Richard had the best argument.--Wizardman 00:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason No events of notability shown - existing and getting married does not pass WP:BIO possible redirect to Mount Baronets. Vintagekits 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 07:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Written as dicdef, and appears to be a neologism. Only Google hit for "my wallet's allowance". Unint 14:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-nonsense--Ispy1981 15:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- pure, concentrated rubbish.--Mike18xx 06:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Stronge Baronets. The history will be left alone so any relevant information can be merged to the main page. JoshuaZ 01:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason No events of notability shown - existing and getting married does not pass WP:BIO possible redirect to Stronge Baronets. Vintagekits 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, it's a copyvio. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Game created in 2003, possibly not notable. Originally nominated for speedy deletion. Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 14:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and add sources For a non-notable sport, there sure are a lot of references. Apparently played internationally.--Ispy1981 15:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like a very legit sport. Has specific equipment, good photos, and lots of google hits. Plm209(talk to me • contribs) 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
is taken from [19] here. ExtraDry 11:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]Scoring on the inflatables is worth 1 point. Scoring on the trampolines is worth 3 points. Hitting the bossawall (= the rings around the trampolines) doesn´t count as a score, so the rally continues.
The result was: Consensus to redirect to Digital library; former content is available here for anybody to merge, if desired. (Early close.) - Mike Rosoft 07:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly old terminology, replaced nowadays by Digital library. The lengthy passage can be summerized "Some companies put relevant resources on their websites to help clients" with a negligible specific example (that does not resemble a library [20]). This is also one of the targets of spammer user:artdhtml. trespassers william 14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 00:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No asertion of notability provided in the article. Existing and getting married fdoes not pass WP:N or WP:BIO - possible redirect to Stronge Baronets Vintagekits 14:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was hoping that someone would in the last week take a look at this list and clarify what information it's trying to convey, because the bulk of it I have no idea. Regardless, a number of recent AFDs has pretty clearly established that the fact of one artist's covering another artist's song is not in itself notable. If the cover version is notable it can be addressed in a discography for the cover artist and/or an article for the song. Otto4711 13:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Based on the arguments, I would recommend a merge to Stronge Baronets, but I'll wait for someone else to do this. Waltontalk 16:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No events of notability shown - existing and getting married does not pass WP:BIO possible redirect to Stronge Baronets. Vintagekits 13:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Coredesat 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Captain is not a notable rank and there is nothing else in the article which shows that this person notability. Vintagekits 13:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The result was delete and redirect to Dorney Park & Wildwater Kingdom. Existence is not notability, and this is not a speedy keep candidate. There's no mergeable information that would be worth mentioning in the park's article. --Coredesat 02:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be an non-notable roller coaster. Almost every amusement park has some sort of wild mouse coaster and there's nothing here to suggest this stands out as a notable coaster. Metros 13:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball delete hoax `'юзырь:mikka 22:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy and contested. I declined the speedy because it doesn't meet the threshold of patent nonsense in my opinion. It is however an unverified neologism that should be deleted, so I'm listing it here. Isotope23 13:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Steve (Stephen) talk 06:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a non-notable roller coaster. It existed for 17 years in the early 1900s and I see no notability that carried through from that era. Metros 13:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 07:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with many deletions of lists of artists who have performed other artists' songs, it is not inherently notable that an artist did so. If a cover version is particularly notable then mention may be made of it in a discography article for the artist and/or in an article for the song. The notable information from this article, on tribute bands and tribute albums, has been preserved at List of ABBA tribute bands and List of ABBA tribute albums. The remnants should be deleted. Otto4711 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, badly-done conspiracy article for al-Qaeda in Iraq built on weasel phrases and hate and extreme distrust of mass media and official statements (appeareantly, all mass media are part of the "corporate media's" disinformation campaign) HanzoHattori 13:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guy's attitute is:[21] Quote: "The associated press is a huge corporation, they can easily propagate misinformation" (it's Reuters and AFP too, and all major newspapers and TV networks as well).
If you look on his talk page,[22] he was warned several times to stop vandalising al-Qaeda-related articles, but he just did not.--HanzoHattori 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if he reverts the proper AQI article again: it's this one.[23] --HanzoHattori 13:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of protecting the articles, take a look at this[24] too (very related). "There's-no-al-Qaeda" stuff + bunch of quite unrelated (and misleading: "himself was never Al Qaeda", to quote) stuff on Zarqawi and also the war in whole for some reason. I'm kind of tired of playing with our friend Latuff. --HanzoHattori 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I think "TruthSeeker777"[25] may be related to "Lft6771": [26] - he has the same obsession (before his move, there was a page on AQI alright, covering also it's origins as Tawhid) "ThruthSeeker" had the original page renamed to Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. (Also, it would be nice if someone explained me the mystery of what and from what article did I appearently "COPY AND PASTE" there exactly, because I don't remember anything like that.)
Timeline to show and prove that this page is not a POV fork and that there is no jusftification for this page to be deleted:
-Lft6771 00:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Condorcet criterion and keep as a redirect. Note that this is a special form of "keep". Note also that merges and redirects are editorial matters, an AfD may recommend but not mandate them, and future editors may undo them or move the redirect elsewhere (although consensus should usually be sought first, as the AfD indicates a degree of consensus for the merge and redirect. In this particular case some of the key information is unsourced and may be OR, so I will be placing it on Talk:Condorcet criterion so that it may be incorporated when and if sourced. DES (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is superfluous and misleading.
This article is superfluous, because the term "majority alternative" is only a new term for "Condorcet winner". But Wikipedia already has articles on the Condorcet criterion and on Condorcet methods. (Wikipedia also has an article on Condorcet winners, but that article is only a redirect to the Condorcet criterion.)
This article is misleading. The article says: "An alternative (e.g. a candidate) which, if compared with each of the other alternatives, in each case is preferred by a majority of voters is called the majority alternative (or majority winner)." Therefore, it seems that the sole purpose of this article is to establish the term "majority winner" for "Condorcet winner". This is a violation of WP:OR, WP:POV, and WP:NEO. Yellowbeard 13:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas "condorcet criterion" deals with the problem of aggregating individual preferences, "majority alternative" argues with a - still very simple - model of the real voting process, including for instance assumptions about voters' behaviour as maximizing their utilities.
If one would merge both articles, for the reader it would be difficult to grasp the fact, that both approaches answer quite different questions.
Eberhard Wesche 15:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to create a new article „Condorcet winner“ and to have a Redirect to it from „majority alternative“ (or vice versa).
A merging of “majority alternative” with the existing “Condorcet criterion” or “Condorcet method” is not recommended as shown by the following example.
In “Condorcet criterion” plurality voting is classified as not complying with the Condorcet criterion.
In contrast to this, the outcome of plurality voting is an existing Condorcet winner, when coalitions are allowed and each voter acts rationally. Eberhard Wesche 08:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 'redirected to Légion d'honneur (which the apparently more common Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur already redirected to). Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 13:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
superceded by 1000x more common "Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur" gHits=451,000 versus 421. Wikid77 12:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Wafulz 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a computer program created by the author of the program. Reads like an advertisement. Fails WP:N as it has no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Itub 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, if the thrust is to deny readers the knowledge that this program exists, and to effectively censor this molecular modeling program because it is not molecular orbital based, then I cannot do anything except to remind us that "science" cannot thrive if any valid idea is not made available to all of science. History has shown this. There is a growing body of knowledge that expresses some unhappiness with the way current MO theory is applied in organic chemistry. This will not go away by censorship. Remember the history of benzene and phlogiston. Vgsbox 14:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A symbol for GLBT pagans that seems to have been designed by the creator and only substantial contributor to the article. There doesn't appear to be any verifiable evidence that this flag has actually seen use as a notable symbol by any groups, unlike the Rainbow flag and company; the article states that it was "first flown" at a 2006 parade, and the article was first created in early March of that very year. A Google search reveals only 7 unique mentions aside from Wikipedia and mirrors, suggesting that this may be something made up at the pride parade one day. Krimpet (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, of the speedy variety (A7). Daniel 08:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local teachers' union. The association has no notability outside the teaching community within the area it represents. Metros 12:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page was AFIAK never deleted but it was the victim of a prank which attempted to redirect the reader to a page which it couldn't be redirected to. The ostensible prankster has been banned from editing Wikipedia.
The result was redirect to . Has been transwikied, plausible search term, but the article contains nothing but "means", "refers to", and "is a term for". Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-Wafulz 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced dicdef article for a colloquial term. The article has been transwikied to Wiktionary and proposed for deletion; but PROD was contested and more dicdef added ("squaddy-proof", "squaddie mentality"). In my opinion, there's no point in keeping it here. Any further edits should go to Wiktionary. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and move to emergency hammer. Resurgent insurgent 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see this article as being inappropriate, it is basically about a small hammer-like object found on buses to smash the glass in case of emergency, is it really necessary. It could be merged into Bus but I dont even think thats necessary. The Sunshine Man 16:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleteWafulz 14:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable rapper per WP:N. Article is all vanispam, references are all self-promo, releases are all Internet download singles. De-prodded by anon with no explanation. WRK (talk) 11:01, 13 June 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)) . |
True; this article is respectable. Yet, the rapper is non-notable; and no sources. It seems to be a good article candidate; yet with all these necessary things missing... Meldshal42 11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-notable rapper. Article is all vanispam, references are all self-promo, releases are all Internet download singles."-WRK
The quote left by the user WRK is false and should not be a valid point to delete the Wikipedia written about the underground recording artist Mixer Jaexx. WRK's quote shows no evidence that the article is vanispam or self promotion, and doesn't state where in the article Mixer Jaexx is referenced to as a "Rapper". Without the proper facts and quotes within the article, WRK's Statement should be considered no more then a disrespectful opinion. The term "Vanispam" is not described in WRK's quote "Non-notable rapper. Article is all vanispam, references are all self-promo, releases are all Internet download singles."-WRK All WRKs quote states is "Article is all vanispam" WRK does not state which article he or she is talking about and does not show and evidence as to were the term "vanispam" is present in the article written about Mixer Jaexx. Calling the article Wikipedia article on Mixer Jaexx "vanispam" is by no means a valid point to delete the wikipedia article on Mixer Jaexx. The accusation WRK stated in the quote "Non-notable rapper. Article is all vanispam, references are all self-promo, releases are all Internet download singles."-WRK, about how the article is nothing more than self promotion also shows no evidence that Mixer Jaexx him self wrote the article. The fact that the only links available at this point in time are to his own personal websites, do not prove Mixer Jaexx wrote the article himself nor does it prove the links are self promotion. Mixer Jaexx.com, and Jaexx.com go to the same website. The website does contain some of Mixer Jaexx’s music, however the content of the site also has forums as well as artwork. Once again Mixerjaexx.com and Jaexx.com are the only sites at this point in time that talk about Mixer Jaexx, making it the only internet resource one could put on wikipedia. The fact that the links go to Mixer Jaexx’s website does not prove in any way shape or form Mixer Jaexx wrote the whole wikipedia article him self. Finally, the last statement in the quote from WRK, "Non-notable rapper. Article is all vanispam, references are all self-promo, releases are all Internet download singles."-WRK, stating Mixer Jaexx is "non-notable rapper" is nothing more than a disrespectful opinion towards the artist. The wikipedia article written about Mixer Jaexx states that Mixer Jaexx is a "Recording artist" and an "Underground Producer". The Wikipedia article also talks about the different genres Mixer Jaexx creates. Once again WRK has shown no evidence to prove the article is calling Mixer Jaexx a “Rapper". As anyone can see WRK was very blunt and very disrespectful towards the article written about Mixer Jaexx. The information WRK posted to get the site shut down is false, he shows no evidence on how any of his points could be valid. Again the statement Non-notable rapper. Article is all vanispam, references are all self-promo, releases are all Internet download singles."-WRK, is nothing more than a disrespectful opinion when looking at legitimately.24.22.240.76 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC) — 24.22.240.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WIKIPEDIA!!!U R VERY BAD WEBSITE!!! FIRST OFF...
and why do care about this dj
he wants to get known in the world with his great music..
Non-Notable rapper??
DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.139.19 (talk • contribs) 01:37, June 14, 2007— 68.72.139.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do Not Delete: I'm a good friend of this guy! What's the problem mates?! Yeah, this guy is so awesome, he produces and releases his music for free, is that so bad? If it is, ask yourself, WHY?! It's some of the best I've heard! Ever heard of DJs giving one of their mixes out for free? I do it! It's called self promotion, but people of the likes of you wouldn't understand that. The Sources may not all be there, but everything besides the fact that he is not a rapper and not releasing a debut album, is true! I don't understand the problem. These people put together a very respectable page for Jaëxx and the next thing you know you people are trying to delete it! It's time wasted for those, and knowing most people, it will come back! I say keep the page, it's very respectable, most of the information is true, and the guy really wants to get his name out there, and this is helping him. Why don't you guys do someone a favor for once in your boring lives, and keep the page up and help someone out with their dream.
Keep in mind that none of this is recalling to your deletion policy! The Deletion policy does not include any of what I have stated! Stop changing your rules just for one guy! It's pathetic. I know these rules!
Jaëxx, if by any chance you read this, or the guys who did the awesome job making this, Totally on your side! I don't see what their problems are!
Much Respect to...most of you, (Producer) AiliX— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.103.3 (talk • contribs) 04:04, June 14, 2007— 216.227.103.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I really don't have time to talk, but I think I understand why WRK and other "hardcore Wiki" users think Jaexx is a rapper. No, they don't know him or read the article or even listened to his music. A guy who came over to pick me up, I showed him the page and told him the mess that was going on, showed him the page and he said "Girl its cos of the african american babe he's with. They see her and think he's a 'rapper'."
I did not think of it before, but I think he's right, I think it's a racist stereo-type. Black girl, white boy: must be a rapper, huh? Jaexx has mentioned in blogs about producing and working for hip-hop artists but has never called himself, or his own music, hip-hop, so no one who knows of him thinks he's a rapper. Yet, these hardcore Wiki users, logging in probably hours on Wikipedia every day who, of all people, should read through every article they are about to try and delete, keep saying he's a rapper when nothing at all, at all, states that.
It does not look good for any of you either way. Either people are judging this guy based off of stereo-typical racism or they're judging this article without ever reading any of it, and just mirroring this "WRK" guy's thoughts of Jaexx being a "rapper". I have more things to say, like stating Wikipedia's actual article rules and about how some articles on some lesser-known DJs (not musicians, but DJs) have not been hassled like Jaexx has, or how the founder of Wikipedia himself says he has not problem with hundreds of Pokemon characters having their own articles (but must have a problem with Jaexx according to the Wiki's), or to break down these Wiki-peoeple's quotes to show how they are contradicting each other, or how on Earth people who spend their time on civil war, house of congress and foot ball articles are more experts on recording artists and producers versus people who are actual fans or are themselves...
But Wikipedia is not my life. So it will have to wait... This will give you all hours upon hours to do all your little research on new ways to try and justify your monstrosity you call a "User Driven Community". (Too bad, before I believed Wikipedia was our community.)
Indie Fan T.F.
Come on guys get a life.. I did not read all of the 'deletion policies' etc but how can you be so anal about it?!
~~Mixer Jaëxx (Pronunciation: ˈjāks), born 1981[citation needed] and raised in the Tampa Bay, Florida area, is an American recording artist and music producer currently residing in Tampa, Florida. Jaëxx is best known for producing his own urban and electronica music and releasing it to the world for free.~~ 11:59, 14 June 2007— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.239.231 (talk • contribs) 17:01, June 14, 2007— 70.246.239.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Ok, some people have made some logical inquires about the article, such as Kesh. It's been mentioned "verifiable sources". One of two things...
1, this article is not about anything but Mixer Jaexx, sharing his music for free and information about Mixer Jaexx, to whom the article is about. A reliable source is his own web site, which clearly states his own name, jaexx.com and mixerjaexx.com. I understand people want to try and protect Wikipedia by verifying outside sources, but that can be done via his own web site because his web site, among other things, is the server for hosting his files. Not all of us download his music directly from his web site. I for one include his songs on my P2P program, which all originally came from the jaexx.com server thingie. So when writing an article about a recording artist and producer who has a nice fan following mainly because of the fact he is sharing his music for free, referencing jaexx.com is absolutely a reliable source because anyone who questions the article's validity of this artist sharing is music for free can be verified immediately after visiting his web site. See, anyone can rip a song and put it onto a P2P network, but Jaexx is actually allowing downloads of his music from his web site and saying his are free to share on P2P networks or DJ at club or other things you really would to ask him.
The second thing, which I understand... How can we verify that Mixer Jaexx is Mixer Jaexx and not some 90 year old Chinese American woman? See, that's the problem right there. NO ONE is calling that into question, so it is a**-backwards to call for the beheading of this article. We don't care whether or not a Wiki admin expert on US politics or NHL, has not heard of Mixer Jaexx. You don't need to know him for us, his fans, to create an article for him.
I repeat... no matter how many hours a day you spend on Wikipedia, it does not make you an expert on topics which you are not involved with. Too bad no one has actually said anything who knows about music or about Mixer Jaexx. Oh wait! Yes people have, it's the one's the warning on top of the page is "warning" not to become involved yeah. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
The person, Mixer Jaexx, who the article states has released songs and other information, is all verifiable easily. And no one is claiming that Mixer Jaexx is actually another person. So to the few, wondering if Mixer Jaexx is verifiable, yes... Why on Earth would there countless apon countless interviews about him when, which he has stated himself, he is turning down or postponing interviews until all songs from his album are released. And honestly we don't care about interviews, we care about how long we have to wait for new music from him.
There is so much disrespectful, rude and inaccurate garbage coming from some of these hardcore Wiki people... and I'm really sick of this, but it's time to go over Wiki's deletion policy that these Wiki admins are claiming states this article should be deleted.
Reasons for deletion
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject) 2. Content not suitable for an encyclopedia 3. Copyright infringement 4. Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax) 5. Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic 6. Inappropriate user pages 7. Inflammatory redirects 8. Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources 9. All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed 10. Newly-coined neologisms 11. Overcategorization 12. Patent nonsense or gibberish 13. Redundant templates 14. Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) 15. Vandalism that is not correctable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dj_krmak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Greyboy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Xclusive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dj_slouch
And also, ANYONE who wanted to express their views on this, can. Do NOT let them intimidate you with their giant "ATTENTION!" with a big red warning sign. This is a USER created article and when people want to express their disdain against Wiki-power users wanting it removed, they sure as heck can. Do not let this gestapo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo ) type group keep you from expressing your views against their warrantless actions. (Your music policy is a disrespectful joke to underground and independent artists.)
Do you Wiki-powerusers think you're fooling us? We know this is a good 'ol boy system. Google searching the terms "corrupt wikipedia admins" brings up countless upon countless reports of abuse of power, such as this situation is here. One former "top 10 editor" of Wikipedia sums up the very scenario that we are all facing.
"Wikipedia’s faulty ‘central control’ means that making serious efforts there is akin to attempting professional writing, tossing it into a wastebasket full of somebody else’s notes, and hoping that it doesn’t get thrown away by an ignorant janitor with power-mad delusions of grandeur. I’m not trying to imply that janitors are stupid, but there are people who see it as their ‘job’ to go around cleaning up Wikipedia; unfortunately, they generally don’t know much of anything about the articles that they are editing. In other words, as described by Fuelwagon, “I imagine Wikipedia more like a couple acres of pretty flowers... run by some guys on lawnmowers.” Now, its true that Wikipedia does a fairly good job of combing out swear words and pornographic pictures (a task which one could probably condition laboratory mice to do)... however, when it comes to the critical editing process, the people in charge are neither qualified nor capable."
Apparently the situation we are facing is nothing compared to what others have dealt with. It's sad really... Before this whole incident, I was ignorant to the corrupt, abuse of power behind some people involved with Wikipedia. I guess it's better to know the truth this way.
Indie Fan T.F.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tronikfunk (talk • contribs) 22:33, June 14, 2007— Tronikfunk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do Not Delete Hello from El Salvador, I do not see any reasons for that deletion, I'm a musician too, and what is if a fan wrote a bio about me, them he/she email me saying "hey look what I wrote about you! There's no copyright infringement or someone can tell me that Wikipedia is only for "Comercial" Artist ?? I think anyone who can contribute with any kind of art should not be despised by someone who don't like his art. If that is the point, I don't like britney spears so I should put her to a deletion discusion. Please help us to continue spreading the art and let the wikipedia be a true source of knowledge not a simple question-answer encyclopedia, thanks -- N.wolfwood— N.wolfwood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
___--Do NOT Delete--___ First of all, with some of the crap I've seen on Wikipedia, and alot of incorrect or incomplete information, I find it hard to believe that you peole who run wikipedia do a very efficient job of editing the content on what it posted. We all know that the internet is a great medium for both finding and giving information, sharing of music, ideas, pictures, finding wives/husbands etc. So why is there a problem with having a single page with information on a very talented person. The whole idea of Wikipedia is being a source of free information that is user friendly and can be customized by the user. If you delete this, then you should go through and really delete alot of other things on here too. I don't see the problem with allowing a very talented and honest producer featured on this site. It is just as viable as the rest of the information found on Wikipedia. I just don't see the harm in it. And if you even read what this person is all about, you would know that he is not a "rapper" like you say he is. Before you delete things, why don't you look into what they are referring to. As always, keep doing what you're doing, but don't delete this page. --Frostbyte— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.167.160 (talk • contribs) 04:53, June 15, 2007— 71.243.167.160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Kesh, you've been a very respectful Wiki-power user, it seems one of the only ones who actually has READ the article and you are really the only person making a point. There are a lot of different things I can respond to, but at the very least say kudos to all the different supporters and fans of Jaexx (my friend and I were starting to feel we were alone). So I really can't get into it... but I want to correct a little typo which you got confused on Kesh.
"Why on Earth would there countless apon countless interviews about him when, which he has stated himself, he is turning down or postponing interviews until all songs from his album are released." I misspelled "apon" and left out a "be", it should be "Why on Earth would there be countless interviews about him". It wasn't being said there "are" interviews, it saying what Jaexx mentioned on his site. My bad. He is turning down, or more likely postponing interviews now. I mean the guy is different... I think in a great way. I confess the first time I've personally spoken to him was a few days ago, with one post on his web site (still doesn't mean I'm not a huge fan of his), but on his myspace page every single person that communicates with him, he responds to. Yet while at the same time, he says
"I'm not like anyone else on myspace. I don't have 10,000 "friends" on myspace, I only have a few because I'm only friends with people who actually interact and delete people who don't and ONLY care about self-promotion, popularity or exposure. The people I am "friends" with on myspace, though, I actually talk with and interact and have fun with. So feel free to add me and I'll drop you a REAL, non-copy and paste comment, but I will delete your *** if you don't show the same respect."
My friends have been added by "artists" who are nowhere near Jaexx's status but have 10,000 friends... That shows the character of Jaexx. See how different this guy is? I don't find it surprising at all that he is not engaging in interviews. In fact, honestly, for all we know... reading somewhere that he produces outside of "Mixer Jaexx the producer", he could be a producer for some big label or artist. Little known fact, he is or was an advocate against the RIAA and he may be trying to play that down more. He could be keeping "Mixer Jaexx" and his real name separate; one's producing for the mainstream and one's producing for the underground. (It's just a theory of mine, not in any fact factual.)
So when it comes to interviews and outside sources, he does not seem to even want the exposure. But we want information about him on Wikipedia, after all... he even mentioned not being too keen on all this information being supplied, but said this article is "for us, by us, about him". He really is the exception to this rule.
But, Kesh, you make a great point. The music policy of Wikipedia, which I understand not you or any other Wiki-power users setup, states it does not want 99.99% of unsigned artists. One bad thing, for Jaexx, that my friend remember reading somewhere that he is against signing onto a label for his own music (and is against creating a vanity "self-label"). There are managers and promoters and distributors (been doing my research) that can get him to superstar dome without being onto a label... I don't believe a label would allow him to freely share his music any ways, so that could explain it.
So, according to Wikipedia's music policy, he may never qualify (not being signed) no matter how big or well-known he is (yet fans will continue to have a problem with the policy). Kesh, it sounds like you don't have a problem with Jaexx (and a few other Wiki-power users)... It's the music policy you have a problem with, I assume. Some people calling for Jaexx's beheading on Wikipedia think the article is "respectable" and worthy, but this one policy is the ONLY thing dictating his article's execution.
Rather than fight against all of and many other artists that have come and past... Why not fight this one policy? I mean we're experts on Jaexx and his music and people like him. But YOU guys are experts on Wikipedia, so how come you can't fight to change the clear injustice this policy serves to respectable artists such as Jaexx? I mean he was so furious, he doesn't want to have anything to do with Wikipedia now. That's so sad, this should have brought him joy, instead, it brought him anger, because of some idiocy of people (calling him a rapper), but most the rest is because of the policy.
You guys are fighting us and him on the policy's sake. What's the policy ever done for you? It sure has made you guys look bad to us, and it's caused unnecessary stress to us and disrespect to Mixer Jaexx. Honestly this isn't just about Jaexx, but about preventing future artists and their fans from facing the same crap. Is this "our" community? Then prove it to the powers that be. (Otherwise, we're forced to believe the corruption of power is true on Wikipedia.) Indie Fan T.F.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The prod was removed from the article without addressing the notability issues of the article. Majority of the edits are by one editor making it look like a vanity project. No other Wikipedia pages actually link to it except one where there is a similar name, the rest are user pages. Badly fails WP:N and WP:V. MPJ-DK 10:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An unnotable address which could be anywhere, as it fails to give any more detail than that (some detective work reveals it to be in London). I have tried to speedy it but it was restored, so, fine, here it is to clog up AFD. Its purported claim to notability is that Lord Edward Davenport had orgies there. This information is already in the Lord Davenport article, and this article is both pointless and worthless. We don't have articles on houses where things happened, we have article on the event or the person, unless the house is notable in and of itself (e.g. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 10 Downing Street, and so on). Wikipedia is not an address book. Delete. Neil ╦ 10:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album. "Artist" is a redirect page, "reviews" are hoaxes. Precisely zero Ghits. Contested prod. tomasz. 09:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Wafulz 14:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable SweetEscape88 07:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Artist singles are typically given articles, and the nominator appears to be nominating articles in bad faith.--Wafulz 14:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Un-notable. Redirect or delete. SweetEscape88 07:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Non-admin closure Ichibani utc 02:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Highly un-notable song. Was released as a single but has no sources and as mentioned, not notable. Suggest redirecting to Jewel (singer) or deleting. SweetEscape88 07:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Single stub, spree of bad-faith edits by a banned user.--Wafulz 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to Goodbye Alice in Wonderland or Jewel (singer) or just deleted. SweetEscape88 07:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. There are no reliable sources for this article. « ANIMUM » 20:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Digital only single. Only sources are iTunes, and the iTunes is not a reliable source. Single isn't even notable enough to have it's own article. Suggest merging what little content there is to Jewel's main page or just deleting or redirecting. SweetEscape88 07:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nonnotable suffixen. Belong to wiktionary `'юзырь:mikka 07:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jewel has mentioned many many times that she plans on releasing a country album. However I donot feel that currently with the lack of information regarding this album that an article is really necessary. Couldn't this just be merged into her article? Sure her article is all clean and stuff, and adding this could make the page look messy, but couldn't someone just cleanly merge this into her article? And then when the time comes that there is enough information (and not just fan speculation) that an actual article can be created? Please support my nomination. SweetEscape88 07:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted (G7 db-author) by Neil. EliminatorJR Talk 13:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Could not find any reliable sources, only heresay based on the same two or three sentences. Original Research and rather hard to establish notability. --Latebird 07:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care to be honest. I created this about a year ago - I was trying to fill in gaps but if there doesn't appear to be any sources available then delete. However I don't think you should question notability when there are hundreds of such articles on other myths and cultures -its the fact there isn't any reliable online sources to back it up that is should be deleted. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 09:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 06:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is either a not notable independent wrestling promotion, backyard wrestling promotion, efed, or hoax. Nenog 06:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing but a not notable independent, backyard or Efed wrestling promotion, combined with spam and/or vandalisms. Nenog 06:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable backyard wrestling promotion. Nenog 06:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable independent promotion. Nenog 06:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable independent wrestling promotion Nenog 06:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. --Coredesat 03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable independent wrestling promotion. Nenog 06:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are titles for a non notable promotion:[reply]
The result was: Speedy deleted. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 08:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally unnotable website number29(Talk) 06:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Precedent setting as to whether Vice Chancellor position is sufficient for notability, most likely as the position at most Universities would have requirements exceeding that of WP:PROF anyway. Gnangarra 05:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not pass WP:BIO & WP:PROF There are no published secondary sources, He has not demonstrable wide name recognition or received significant recognized awards or honors. Only recieved the Centenary Medal which was only created by the Australian Government in 2001 to commemorate the Centenary of Federation of Australia, He was one of 15,841 people. So to sum it up Not Notable ExtraDry 06:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. If the article isn't improved in a reasonable amount of time, it can run for AfD again. Sr13 06:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't show notability, scope of conference (are there other international mideval conferences? Are there not?), etc. This article needs drastic additions to meet wp standards. However, the reason I am putting this on WP:AFD is because I think it was only made as an ad for the conference, for when people search online for "international congress on Medieval Studies". If this is not the case, and people use this article, and people are planning on making it better, than by all means vote for keep. --Ceas webmaster 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 June 2007
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No references, and the Spanish Wikipedia page for him makes no mention of Weird Al, let alone him being the official dubber. Only known for non-notable voice over work, according to a Google search for the name. Ryanasaurus0077 also made the "International Weird Al" article which has been deleted for the same reasons I'm nominating this. ~~ Gromreaper(Talk)/(Cont) 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is unencyclopedic: is about a position that is so varied among groups that an accurate article is nigh impossible. Also, this article purposefully restricts itself to Fraternities and sororities, when other social clubs and student organizations have similarly titled positions. —ScouterSig 21:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 06:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears non-notable. It was used in a commercial. It hasn't been released on an album, and it hasn't been released as a single (but it might be). No apparent coverage by third-party sources. ShadowHalo 06:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Apparently not a popular subject of dscussion... Sr13 06:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Company is not notable as per WP:ORG- has not been covered by reliable, independant secondary sources. Note that a primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. This has not been the case with this brand. A google search [54] reveals primarily official sites and online retailers. Yankees76 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete – article is clearly advertising for this company without any mention of notability. - KrakatoaKatie 06:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article generally comes across as advertising without much of notability assertion besides being one of a few in a niche market. I haven't found any sources to establish notability and the one source on the article seems pretty trivial (conducting business under an FDA regulation?). This was a disputed prod. Cquan (after the beep...) 06:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article discusses a stadium that does not exist in Saskatoon. It is a very nice work of fiction, but sadly is just that fiction. Shootmaster 44 06:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close - this was created by a serial hoaxster. Hoaxes aren't CSD material, but common sense applies. Grandmasterka 22:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article discusses a track and field club that does not exist in Saskatoon. As such, it is a very nice work of fiction but is simply that fiction. Shootmaster 44 06:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep -- Kings article Delete Shire and Liverpool articles. as note below This afd had addressed the issues raise solely for Kings Christian Church, while only delete discussion has taken place on the Shire Christian Centre and the Liverpool Christian Centre
Non-notable Assemblies of God church. The article makes no real assertion of notability and no independent reliable sources Mattinbgn/ talk 21:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above
The result was speedy deleted by Lectonar (G4; no new info). Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page previously deleted. Recreated in lower case. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 06:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a promotion but an Efed. Nenog 05:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence that any person by this name is or was an actual NHL player. JavaTenor 06:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. To be honest, this could have been speedy deleted under unremarkable firms.--Wafulz 14:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very tiny press; please see the related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Donovan Mullaney. Relevant guideline is WP:CORP. Note that all three poets mentioned don't have articles; Andrew Barlow is somebody else. Chick Bowen 06:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Gnangarra 05:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are few things less notable than a list of umpires. At least it isn't a list of songs about umpires. Clarityfiend 05:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a history student who fails WP:BIO. As listed in the article, his accomplishments are: a self-published novel, a poem featured in a community newspaper, and a short story included in an on-line periodical. He is the recipient of an award at his college's student film festival, and will feature as an an extra in an upcoming mini-series. The creation of a single purpose account, the article cites an interview with Hershey (presumably unpublished) as one of its references. Victoriagirl 04:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was bold redirect to the appropriate article. Sr13 06:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable crater on the moon Triton. It's already listed in List of geological features on Triton and this article adds no additional information. Clarityfiend 04:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source, basically it's against No Original Research, and Wikipedia is not a resume Rcm 04:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
where she gets three paragraphs in an article on voluntary student unionism. Capitalistroadster 11:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 03:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Mets501 as patent nonsense. Non-admin closure. Resolute 03:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism/internet meme. Zero google hits, no sources, no verification. Article claims it was created by author of article, so vanity is highly probable.Wingsandsword 03:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Corvus cornix 02:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn (Non administrator closing per Non-administrators closing discussions). --Tikiwont 12:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't meet notability requirements. Individual is a senior editor for a magazine. Senior Editors are not in and of themselves notable.Balloonman 02:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 05:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interchange. It's not anything more than an interchange. It has a name primarily for traffic reports. I don't see this article ever being significantly expanded. CitiCat 01:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The result was Delete. DES (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A directory list of ISBNs, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Masaruemoto 01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Despite the the contention that this article clearly meets WP:BIO I don't see this as being the case. There are citations in the article from reliable sources, but Ben is not the primary subject of these sources; he is mentioned in passing along with other vloggers. I would consider this to be trivial coverage. That said, there is quite a bit of trivial coverage; enough that I think the gestalt establishes that the subject meets the spirit of WP:BIO if not the letter. There is also the issue of a number of newer editors with a fixation on this particular AfD opining here. Distilling out just the opinions of more established editors leads me to declare that there is no consensus to delete at this time, thus defaulting to keep. That said, some of the sourcing could use tightening up; not everything being used is a reliable source. --Isotope23 16:51, 20 June 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)) . |
Delete Article is nominated but it is lacks factual information and is written like a fan site and/or autobiography for a person who is currently living. It lacks neutrality based on edits made by close friends and appears to be an advertisement for Vlogger. The page has been up for over a year and the content is misleading and counter factual. It redas like a resume/cv or advert for "his career". This "vlogger" has threatened to delete his youtube account several times, and uploads copyrighted material which against the TOS of both this site and YouTube.Sexyorge
--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
◄► 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- thx Shoopshoop 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any connections to other accounts listed by this user. As far as User:Ichormosquito goes, I'd greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from immature personal attacks directed twords me. I have a vote just like everyone else who voted on this article, just as you do. If you wish to have a discussion with me, please take it to private message or on another website. As far as http://www.youtube.com/thesexogre666 is concerned, this 'man' made claims on Youtube that I am a pedophile. You can see by comments I posted that I was just attempting to defend myself and I kept comments to a minimum, as I did not feel this users maturity level was up to par. To say that I am "fixated" with this guy is a rather reckless statement considering this YT user made two videos about me and I made zero about him. Kind of seems like the other way around. Also, implying that I called and harassed Cory Williams (Mr. Safety) is also a reckless statement, as I would not have access to his phone number. The comments left by this user are slanderous and I'm not even sure what they have to do with this articles possible deletion. Have a day.--Mikeskehan 21:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
◄► 18:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this and the thousands of other sites like it- Shoopshoop 21:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Boh3m3, or Ben Going admits to cheating the terms of the service for youtube. By begging for money on a various youtube clips in fact, in his latest video clip "e-begging" he admits to begging for money and then states he would do "anything for publicity" including having his friends edit and manage his wikipedia article to help advertise his career. Hopeftw 20:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So where'd this great article come from? I checked every reference. Almost the entire article is either verified from sources that are unreliable (e.g. a Youtube channel, a blog, a press release, or an interview with M. Going himself: ref #'s 2, 4, 9-11, 13, 15, 17-19, 21-23, 25-28); or original research gleaned from the references (ref #'s 3, 6-8, 12 14, 24). The only content that is properly sourced is sourced to ref #'s 1, 16, and 20, all of which are about something other than Going and are trivial with respect to him. Pan Dan 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the NYT came right out and said that Going is "notable," that would not show that he is notable is the sense we mean on Wikipedia. Notability on Wikipedia has to with sufficient quality, quantity, and depth of coverage to write an encyclopedia article. It doesn't have to do with pronouncements by anybody (even a reliable source) that something or someone is "notable." Pan Dan 16:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 05:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to not meet notability in WP:BIO and might be self promotional. Serlin 01:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasDELETE per concerns established below. Nick 12:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --Steve (Stephen) talk 06:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not clear, originally written as a thank-you and not an article, and no sources to boot. Sentence structure and style aren't too good either. JoeyETS 01:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Cúchullain t/c 07:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the Mongolian word "chono" does indeed mean "wolf", the rest of the article seems to be entirely OR. It is the only work of its creator, who is unlikely to return for adding sources. Other than stated, Genghis Khan belonged to the Borjigin, which is probably the only Mongolian tribe notable enough to justify its own WP article. --Latebird 01:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sirs, sorry for references - they are just added. There are Rashid ad-Din and Altan Tobchi, also Gumilev and Kozin. The tribe is still exist, so I hope you do not want to delete the article. Some people say Chonos is a remains of Ashina (Gumilev supposed that Ashina was a mongol-speaking tribe of Wolf, Kozin called 70 chonos boys, who was boiled by jamuha after Zeren, princes. - but. of course, in a such way big part of mongolians can calls themselves nobles... Chonos - tribe with a very long history, that still existing, so maybe it is no need to delete the article, just read Rashid ad-Din, where he writes about old and new mongolian tribes, or see Altan Tobgchi where about Zeren battle or Mongolian Old tribes. If somebody does not know books about mongolian history it is better to read than to offer to delete the article...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arasha (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understand your position, sorry for my bad English. 1. I just wanted to open an article about tribe I belonged to, and make our WP more rich of knowledge. Also, as I supposed, perhaps it was interesting to some mongolists. For example, L.N. Gumilev in "Ancient Rus and Great Steppe" wrote, that he did not understand why among thousands killed in battle od Zeren 70 Chonos are mentioned, and he wrote that it is interesting what is it. And he wrote in some books that Ashina was a tribe of Wolf and mongol-tongued. So for some people maybe it would be interesting. Then in Buryatia and Irkutskaya provence I met people who belong to Chonos too (I am from Kalmykia). Then one guy from China said that in Inner Mongolia there was a tribe in Chinese named LangZu, tribe of Wolf, but he did know Mongolian name. Some guys from Mongolia said that Chonos is a part of Borjigin or Borjigin is a part of Chonos, (Borchigin is a Bor Chono/Chino - Grey Wolf, when Chonos is Wolves). In May 2007 National Geography had took 50 probes of genetic of members of Chonos tribe to search it (and 250 of others Kalmyk tribes). And many old Mongolian tribes, as Kereits, Taichiuts (Chonos in 13 century belonged to Taichiuts), Merkets, Hoits and Derbet, Choros, Hoshud, Torgouts-Keshictens etc. 2.In Kalmykia we very carefully look at tribes, and during soviet period most tribes, relatives and male lines were saved. as you know, among western mongols was not a melting pot.
about grey or brown - hz - my english is not good enough and I do not have time to use dictionary. I suppose it is no need to delete the article. I do not have Rashid ad-Din now, but still remember that you can find description of the tribe, including one Persian emir, among descriptions of old and new mongolian tribes. Arasha 07:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, no references arose to assert anything --Steve (Stephen) talk 06:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Subject is a proposal made in 2003 to limit the vocabulary in Esperanto and its derivatives. Article makes no claim for the subject's notability, and cites no reliable third-party publications. The only provided sources are the self-published (and freely hosted) website of Greg Hoover, the proposal's creator, and the proposal's associated profile at the constructed language wiki Langmaker, which was also authored by Greg Hoover.
Attempts to use Google to establish notability or lack thereof prove difficult, as "Baza" is both a town in Granada and a common adjective in the Esperanto language. Baza's alternative name, "Inter-Esperanto" returns matches of the phrase "inter Esperanto" (no hyphen), which is quite common since "inter" is an Esperanto word for the preposition "between". Despite several attempts, I have not been able to find any reliable third-party sources on either Google or Google Scholar. A search on EBSCOhost, a search engine for academic journals, has also revealed nothing. -- Schaefer (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was afd not needed. W.marsh 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the article title is mis-spelled Aepoutre 00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)aepoutre[reply]
The result was speedy delete as spaaaaaaaam. Sr13 06:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previous editor did not finish with the AfD work, so I'm doing some housekeeping. (I'd just prod it, myself). Reasons would be non-notable (company started in 2007), first several pages of non-wiki ghits are all pr sites, COI, spammy, and whatever else you'd like to throw in. Kathy A. 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 00:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much of an assertion of notability and I'm having trouble finding specific guidance on whether any particular department can "inherit" notability from the institution of which it is part. I can't find any independent sources about this department that are not trivial listings (which IMHO includes a U.S. News ranking of programs). In general I don't believe that departments at universities should be able to take notability their stake of notability from the university (I think the farthest it should stretch is to schools within the university). Also, this article is practically a directory listing with a few tidbits of information about the department in general. Cquan (after the beep...) 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If this person becomes successful in the future, the article can be created again. Sr13 00:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion but some notability is asserted. Still, the article looks spammish. Procedural nomination. Pascal.Tesson 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted by User:DGG. I am not an admin. Morgan Wick 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No content, let alone evidence of notability, Article was created maliciously Alansohn 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a non notable person, and fails WP:BIO - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 23:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]